The Arab Spring (and its troublesome, yet still hopeful, aftermath in Egypt), intervention in Libya, nonintervention in Syria and Bahrain, drone military operations in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the influx of unwanted immigrants and walls of exclusion, and selective applications of international criminal law draw into question the most basic of all ideas of world order: the sovereignty of territorial states, and its limits. Also, at issue, are the closely related norms of international law prohibiting intervention in the internal affairs of states and affirming the fundamental right of self-determination as an inherent right of all peoples. These are basic rules of international order acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, taking the form of prohibiting the Organization from intervening in matters ‘essentially within domestic jurisdiction’ and through affirmations of the right of self-determination.
The latter is only aspirational in the Charter, but becomes obligatory as a result being posited as common Article 1 of the two human rights Covenants and being listed as one of seven principles enumerated in the authoritative Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States (UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, 1970).
At the same time, as Ken Booth provocatively pointed out almost 20 years ago, one of the great failings over the centuries of the Westphalian framework of world order (based on treaties of peace in 1648 concluded at the end of the Thirty Years War that are treated as establishing the modern European system of territorial states premised on the juridical ideal of sovereign equality) was associated with sovereign prerogatives to possess unconditional authority in state/society relations. Booth showed that respect for sovereignty had legitimated the inner space of states as a sanctuary for the commission of what he called ‘human wrongs,’ that is, non-accountable and cruel abuses of persons subject to territorial authority. Historically, the West claimed rights of intervention, often in the name of ‘civilization,’ in the non-West, particularly in the decaying Ottoman Empire of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The great wakeup experience, at least rhetorically for the liberal West, was the non-response at the international level to the lethal internal persecutions in Nazi Germany during the 1930s, which were not only within a sovereign state, but within a country with a high claim to be a major embodiment of Western civilization.
The responses after World War II, mainly expressed via international law, consisted of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of surviving German and Japanese leaders, the adoption of the Genocide Convention, and the negotiation and approval of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), as well as the establishment of the United Nations itself. These were well-intentioned, although somewhat ambivalent, gestures of global responsibility that generated criticisms and even suspicions at the time: the Nuremberg and Tokyo standards of individual accountability for crimes were only imposed by the coalition of victors in World War II upon the losers, exempting the Allied Powers from any legal responsibility for the terror bombings of German and Japanese cities and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the Genocide Convention seemed deficient due to its failure to provide mechanisms for enforcement; the UDHR was drafted under the sway of Western liberal individualism as a hegemonic orientation, and was only endorsed in the form of a non-binding ‘declaration,’ a clear signal that no expectation of enforcement existed; as well, the legitimacy of the colonial structures of foreign ruler were not questioned until challenged by a series of populist uprisings throughout the non-West that produced some bloody wars as in Indochina and Algeria.
In passing, it should be observed that the West never respected the sovereign rights of the peoples of the non-West until it was forced to do so. Whether it was European colonialism that extended its reach throughout Africa and Asia or the assertions of American hegemony over Latin America beneath the banner of the Monroe Doctrine the pattern was one based on relations of hierarchy, not equality. This was accompanied by a refusal to extend the Westphalian writ of mutual respect for sovereign rights beyond the Euro-American regional domain until the imperial order began to crumble after World War I. First, the Good Neighbor policy seemed to reaffirm sovereignty for Latin America, but only within limits set by Washington, as the Cold War era of covert and overt interventions confirm. In the Middle East and Africa various experiments with colonial halfway houses were undertaken within the framework of the League of Nations, and formalized as the Mandates System. Secondly, after World War II, a variety of nationalist movements and wars of national liberation broke the back of European colonialism as an acceptable political arrangement, and the idea of the equality of sovereign states was globalized as a matter of juridical doctrine, although not geopolitically.
During the last six decades, the world has moved forward in pursuit of global justice—or has it? On the one side, human rights has matured beyond all expectations, and to some degree exerts a generalized moral and political force subversive of national sovereignty by validating a higher law that exists above and beyond the legal order of the state. This subversive thrust is reinforced by the development and institutionalization of international criminal law, enforcement of accountability claims against such pariah leaders as Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, as well as lesser figures in the entourage of tyrants, the establishment of the International Criminal Court, arrest warrants for the likes of el-Bashir of Sudan and Qaddafi. And, perhaps, most significantly in relation to global justice, the rise of respected transnational NGOs that have created a somewhat less selective pressure for implementation of human rights norms, but one that remains weighted toward political and civil rights that are given priority in the liberal democracies of the North, and one that gives little attention to the economic, social, cultural, and collective rights that possess primary importance to developing societies in the South. In actuality, the UDHR was correct in its integration of all forms of human rights in a single coherent legal instrument, but it became a casualty of the Cold War ideological tensions between capitalism and socialism, with one side championing a liberal individualist understanding of human rights and the other side a collective conception.
And yet, these various moves toward what might be called ‘humanitarian globalization’ achieved at the expense of older conceptions of sovereignty are too often subordinated to the realities of geopolitics. That is, the application of legal standards and the assertion of interventionary claims remain imbalanced: the West against the rest, the North against the South, the strong against the weak. Even the supposedly globally oriented human rights NGOs devote most of their attention to non-West violations when it comes to alleged infractions of international criminal law. Selective applications of law and morality tarnish the integrity of law and morality that is premised upon fidelity to principles of equality and reciprocity. This makes supposed challenges to sovereignty suspect; but are they also worthless, or as some argue, worse than worthless?
There are two contradictory modes of response. The liberal answer is to insist that progress in society almost always occurs incrementally, and doing what is possible politically is better than throwing up one’s hands in frustration, and doing nothing. So long as targets of intervention and indicted leaders are given fair trials, and are convicted on the basis of the weight of the evidence, such results should be affirmed as demonstrating an expanding global rule of law, and serving the interests of global justice. The fact that the principal states intervene at will and enjoy impunity in relation to international criminal law remains a feature of world politics, and is even given a prominent constitutional status at the UN by granting a veto power to the five permanent members of the Security Council.
The critical response argues that the prevalence of double standards contaminates law, and makes it just one more instrument of power. The authority and legitimacy of law depends on its linkage to justice, not power. To enforce prohibitions on the use of aggressive force or the commission of crimes of state only on losers and the weak is implicitly to cede the high moral and legal ground to the richest and most dangerous political actors. It makes available a humanitarian disguise for abusive behavior in a post-colonial global setting, providing pretexts for disregarding the dynamics of self-determination, which is the legal, political, and moral lynchpin of a system of sovereign states detached from the hierarchies of geopolitics.
In a world beset by contradictions, there are only hard choices. There seem to be three kinds of situation that somewhat transcend this tension between liberal and critical perspectives: a severe natural disaster that cannot be addressed by national capabilities (e.g., Asian tsunami of 2004; Haiti earthquake of 2010) acute or imminent genocide as in Rwanda (1994) where a small international effort would have seemed likely to avert the deaths of hundreds of thousands; a mandate to act issued by the UN Security Council as in Libya. In each instance, there are risks, uncertainties, and unanticipated effects; especially worrisome is the recent pattern of authorizations of force by the Security Council. Both in the Gulf War (1991), to some extent the sanctions currently imposed on Iran, and now with the Libyan intervention, the mandate to use force is stretched beyond the limits specified in the language of authorization. In the Libyan case, Security Council Resolution 1973, the initial justification for intervention, was justified by reference to an emergency situation endangering the lives of many Libyan civilians, but converted operationally and massively by NATO into a mandate to achieve regime change in Tripoli by dislodging the Qaddafi leadership. No effort was made to secure a broader mandate from the Security Council and nothing was done to insist that NATO operations be limited by the terms of the original UN authorization.
What can be done? We have little choice but to cope as best we can with these contradictions, especially when it comes to uses of force in the course of what is labeled as a ‘humanitarian intervention’ or an application of the ‘right to protect’ norm. I would propose two ways to turn the abundance of information on these issues into reliable knowledge, and hopefully thereby, to engender greater wisdom with respect to the specifics of global policy and decision-making. First, acknowledge the full range of realities in international life, including the absence of equal protection of the law; that is, judging claims and deciding on responses with eyes wide open by being sensitive to the context, including its many uncertainties. With these considerations in mind adopt a posture of reluctance to use force except in extreme cases. Secondly, presume strongly against reliance on hard power resolutions of conflict situations both because the costs almost always exceed the estimates of those advocating intervention and because military power during the period of the last sixty years has rarely been able to shape political outcomes in ways that are on balance beneficial for the society on whose behalf the intervention is supposedly taking place.
When it comes to severe human rights abuses, somewhat analogous considerations apply. In almost every instance, deference to internal dynamics seems preferable to intervention-from-without, while soft power interventions-from-below-and-without are to be encouraged as expressions of emergent global democracy. Victimization and collective acute vulnerability should not be insulated from assistance by rigid notions of sovereignty, but nor should self-determination be jeopardized by the hypocritical moral pretensions of hegemonic states. This is inevitably a delicate balance, but the alternative is to opt for extremes of passivity or activism.
In effect, to the extent possible, global challenges to sovereignty should take the form of transnational soft power tactics of empathy as identities of persons around the globe become as globalized (and localized) as markets. The recent furor aroused by Freedom Flotilla II is illustrative of an emerging tension between the role of sovereign states in defining the contours of law and morality and that of popular forces mobilized on behalf of those unjustly suffering and neglected by the world of states. Ideally, the UN should act as a mediating arbiter, but the UN remains a membership organization designed to serve the diplomacy of sovereign states and the states system, and is generally hostile to the claims of global civil society, however well founded. One attractive proposal to endow the UN with a more robust mediating role is to establish some form of Global Parliament, perhaps building on the experience of the European Parliament that has evolved in authority and political weight over the decades. A more relevant innovation consistent with the above analysis would be the establishment of a UN Humanitarian Emergency Peace Fund with independent funding, an authorizing procedure that was not subject to a veto, and an operational discipline that ensured that the implementation of a mandate to act forcibly did not exceed its boundaries.
The Anglo-French Plutocrats have Fully Ensured the Puppetship of many Arab League Countries, and they know that the Saudi Arabian King, and other Arab Leaders, and even Turkish Leaders look good on Film.
There are many Loyal and Patriotic Independent American Investigative Journalists who have proven that Al-Qaeda is a CIA funded creation.
These many Loyal and Patriotic Independent American Investigative Journalists also know that Most of America’s Main Stream Media and their Journalists are Corrupted, Bribed, and Puppetized by the American Plutocrats, using the same Method that is used on the Corrupt and Bribed American Politicians.
The Effectiveness of the Puppetship to the Ruling Plutocratic Elites and has been perfected because of Film Recording Technology.
If I were one of a group of American Plutocrats, then by Definition, I would want Total Obedience by the Elected Politicians, even though they were Democratically Elected by the Gullible American Voters, they would be Total Puppets of the Behind The Scenes Plutocrats.
They would not be Representatives of those who even Democratically Elected them, but they will all be good Liars and Expert Con Artists, otherwise they would not receive Plutocratic Funding for their Election Campaigns.
The same Principle would apply to those Puppet Countries of England, France, and America who had Elections, because most of those Candidates will be our Puppets.
A Perfect Example is Serbia where the American Plutocrats has most of the Political Parties and the Media under their Total Command.
It is important to build on the Foundation of Elementary Facts, and one of those Elementary Facts is that the American Plutocrats, Most of the American Politicians, and Most American Journalists and Media Will and Do Lie whenever they need to, or even whenever they want to.
Another Elementary Fact is that Many Americans are either Gullible, or they Pretend to be Gullible for a number of reasons.
I do not know about you, but if I was one in a group of American Plutocrats, then the English, French, and American Plutocrats would want GUARANTEES, GUARANTEES, and more GUARANTEES that our Puppet Politicians would Never Ever Disobey us.
There could be some People who think that if the American Plutocrats could threaten the American Politicians with death, then the American Politicians will always be their Puppets.
That is not how it is done in Democracies, but with the Unelected Allies of England, France, and America the option of any Unelected Ally that refuses be Fully Obey the Anglo-French Plutocrats, then they will suffer the Saddam Hussein treatment.
With regards to America, the Ruling Plutocrats are very reluctant to murder any American Politicians, because such a situation is messy and inadvisable.
The American Plutocrats would use a false suicide note, along with drugs or child pornography would be planted near the body, and any film of the Dead American Politician in Acts of bestiality or Paedophilia would only be used in an unavoidable situation.
The Anglo-French Plutocrats have Full Spectrum Dominance, and that means that the Anglo-French Plutocrats Control the Entire Show of their Puppets Globally.
The approach that the Anglo-French Plutocrats use in Democracies is the Carrot and the Stick Approach, and the Carrot is of Course Fortune and Fame.
With things this risky, and with the gamble so great for the Dictatorial Plutocrats, then only those American Politicians that have Secretly been filmed in Acts of Bestiality and Paedophilia would be Candidates, and only they could be Trusted to Always Obey the American Plutocrats.
If ordinary People would settle for less than this type of Guarantee, then all I can say is that they are True Idiots in every aspect of the word Idiot.
If an American Politician is known to have committed Bestiality, then they would not be re-elected, but they would also not go to jail for committing Bestiality.
Even so, these American Politicians know that the endless embarrassment they would encounter, and so that is Probably enough to ensure their Total Puppetship to the American Plutocrats.
However, just to make sure, the American Plutocrats would want their Puppet American Politicians to be filmed in Acts of Paedophilia, so that a Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald situation could exist to prevent any one of the numerous Corrupt and Bribed American Puppet Politicians from going to Court and revealing some of the Dirt on the American Plutocrats.
It is just too early to start making any announcements on the News Corporation news story, except to say that the Media Competition and Anglo-French Governments may have vested interests in misrepresenting the situation.
At this stage, we cannot say that there is a conspiracy by Anglo-French Governments to silence News Corporation, because the Anglo-French Governments have information that News Corporation will tell the truth about the Highly Illegal and Immoral War and Genocide against Libya, and the Libyan People.
I think that most People, including myself want to know what is the real truth of the recent News Corporation’s stories are.
I am not taking anyone’s side in this matter, but only the side of the Facts, and the side of Proper Journalistic Standards.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the other Main Stream Media that in Commercial Competition with News Corporation, have been doing the biding of Anglo-French Governments, and so perhaps they are doing it here with News Corporation.
What I have noticed concerning the news Items, even with some Alternative small Media Websites, is that they are not using the word Alleged, or Allegation, but it appears to be Trial by Media.
I do not want to mention too much concerning aspect of the News Stories, because, once the Main Stream Media see a flaw in their handling of matters, they will only put on the appearance of being honest and objective.
This change in tactics by News Corporation’s Competition will only make me look like a liar, and there really is no time to publish earlier News Stories showing this Trial by Media Process.
This is why I do not want to say too much, because I want the players in this matter to lay their cards on the table, and then we can always backtrack, and find the recorded words and any biased and unprofessional methods that were employed.
It is a difficult situation, because at the same time, honest People want proper Journalistic Standards to be used, because the reputation of Journalism as a Public Responsibility is on Trial here.
We know that the issue is not the Corrupt and Bribed Anglo-French Main Stream Media, because they have all failed the test of self regulation that a Free Society and a Free Press must allow their Media.
We need to keep in mind that News Corporation’s Competition can increase their profits, and this situation has the potential, to put it Very Diplomatically for a Conflict of Interests.
We can clearly see that there has not been the Presumption of Innocence, but the Main Stream Media is acting just like usual, and I hope it is not at the Instructions of the Anglo-French Governments.
Allegations such as these require that Legal Representation be given, and that sufficient time be allowed to give proper answers to questions by the Authorities.
There will be those who are opponents of Proper Standards of Accountability and Justice who will say that following Proper Standards of Accountability and Justice just gives Alleged Criminals time to make up excuses.
Such reasoning is Deceptive, because Criminals, especially good ones, and those who have learned from the Mistakes of others, will always have their excuses invented, even before they commit a crime.
I know from writing comments, that I wished I had written it slightly differently, and that it contained additional information to make it less ambiguous.
There is no need to guess how the Media Vultures with Vested Interests, and possibly on orders from Anglo-French Governments will swoop on anything to make a Mountain out of a molehill.
We need no further proof of this than how Anglo-American Governments have set People up and committed Crimes, while having their Lies published in the Main Stream Media who are their Accomplices, with Libya being the latest example of this.
The Anglo-American Governments would set up a Media Organization that was considering becoming more Community Minded, by putting more emphasis on the need for less Money to be spent on Foreign Wars, and for more Money to be Spent on Desperately Needed Domestic Social Programmes.
I could write a lot on this subject, but I just wanted People to notice if the Corrupt and Bribed Main Stream Media uses the Words Alleged and Allegation in their News Stories on this matter.
I have just done extra reading and watching of videos on this News Corporation matter, and I am slowly coming up to speed with this matter.
It is true that just because someone Confesses to having committed a Crime, this of itself does not necessarily mean that they done it; however, when it comes to Confessions by the Corrupt and Bribed Western Main Stream Media I will accept it a Fact.
This is just the Corrupt and Bribed Western Main Stream Media standard practicing procedure, and if it is accompanied by a Confession, then I do believe it.
We know that the other Media Organizations must have done, and are probably doing the same thing, but they will not Confess for the Obvious Reasons.
Many People do not have a problem with the Police and the Media working together in a principled manner, but for the Police to pay Money to the Media and for the Media to pay Money the Police is definitely Illegal and it is Unacceptable to Many People.
The point I was making was that I hope that a Story involving Media Accountability and Journalistic Standards, could be handled in such a manner that reflects Proper Media Accountability and Journalistic Standards.