Those who believe in international law have a negative response to the statement ‘there is no world government, there can be no International law, they believe international law exists.’
Concurrent sessions of this essay shall identify and analyze reasons that make International law believers emphasize having a world government. The International law is vital to the well being of individuals, countries, states, and the entire world (Yunker 2005). This is because the International law represents individuals, countries and nations together with their empires and territories, and sovereignty, controlled and managed together under a common sovereignty, and law. Those who believe in International law consider it to have greater powers than States law and Federal law, and National law in various Nations, covering areas beyond those covered by the National law, reaching areas, regions, and fields that the National law, is restricted. They consider the law have mandate to handle cases and issues which the National law cannot handle (CSDI 1976).
The essay’s Argument Statement (AS) is although there is no World government, there is an international Law, and formation of a World government is necessary. The essay has pointed a number of Argument Points (AP) to support the AS. A number of points have been raised to oppose the essay’s AS. The essay has refuted them in the body session.
Those who believe in International law argues that it’s construction is similar to national laws, but with greater powers and covering a wider area than a national law, they argue that it has greater beneficial power, which ensure every individual in the world is happy, and lives well free from stress, conflict and problems. The International law stands a better position of handling and solving problems in a broader perspective compared to national law. With the power, the law ensures fair participation in global market by all countries, enforce justice, and stands a better position in solving problems related to crimes, violence, terrorism, diseases, changes in climate, and poverty among others.
Currently most of the nations are free and independent. There is no international constitution legislator, and military. The nations have economical and political relationships, and some get financial benefits from others either directly or indirectly (Alexander 2003 pp. 534). A number of bodies such as unions, contracts, coalitions and agreement links many nations especially in matters relating to authority. Individual nation makes agreements and sign treaties which they consider appropriate, except in cases where a nation is under another nations’ military control.
International law has developed globally accepted legal principles. Exceptional case are handled by the International court of justice. The court interprets the law, overlooking the violation of customary law and treaties. This ensure that all offenders get considerable punishment (Lipsky 1971).
Many nations and Countries are poor, a factor that has retarded their development. The poverty has made many citizen in these nations to live miserable life as they hardly meet basic needs, lowering their living standards. The poverty has influenced increase in crimes, as the poor individuals strive to earn their living, by all means. Individuals lack money to seek medical interventions when they fall sick, increasing chances of disease transmission and deaths. Poverty in these nations has been influenced by the geography location of the nations, and the financial instability in the nation, either because of low income, or as a result mishandling of the nations finances by the government (Torbjorn 2008). those who believe in International law believe that the law through other organizations participate in reducing poverty, and enhancing fair wealth distribution. They consider the law to have power to ensure considerable living standards, by spending portion of their money on the need of the poor citizens, and by availing education to all citizens in various nations regardless of the individual’s and nations financial status. Good living standards and access to education enhances World development. Those who believe in International law, believe without the law, illiteracy and poverty would prevail in many countries.
Currently the World is in danger as increase in use of nuclear weapons increase the violence rate, to extents of wars. The impact of such war is experienced by many individuals and nations across the world (Etzioni 2004). Currently Non-violent sanctions and threat retaliatory violence limits the use of violence in various nations, meaning that nations without such threat, they are likely to use violence against others. The International law actively participates in uniting nations, by discouraging violence, among nations and promoting peace in the entire world. International law has power to stop civil war and rebellions, which contributes to world nuclear warfare, and massive world destruction. The international law protects individuals from various countries during war and armed conflict. For example humanitarian law defines rules of war with regard to protecting civilians, the wounded people and the prisoners. According to the response of those who believe in International law, the unity experienced by many nation would not be available without the law, as nuclear weapons production would increase.
International law has power over individual countries and nations. This means that it has power to enforce justice. Governments of many nations are not just, and have mandates over nations progress giving no chances fer correction. (Malcolm 2003, pp. 2). They consider their ideas and actions final. Injustice of these governments has lead to poor development of the nations, and poor living standard of the people. The International law strives to ensure various governments are just, fights injustice in the unjust nations, and gives room for corrections. Those who believe in International law believe that without such law injustice would dominate and ruin the world.
The International law protects human rights. According to the law, every individual can demand fundamental rights such as freedom from bodily harm,and personal freedom. The law ensures that whoever violates these rights is punished. Those who believe in International law find that without such law, there would be no human rights.
International law ensures various countries and nations are participating in global market, and enjoy the benefits of the trade. Without the law, global trade would not be possible, since barriers such as countries insecurity, would limit traders relating with others in the insecure countries, lack of finances to process available law material into a marketable product, and rebellions or civil war within the country. This would expose the hindered countries to continued poverty, despite the fact that they posses rich sources of of products they can trade on to generate income and improve their living standards. International law enhances peace in these countries, creating an access to the commodities in the country. It also promotes processing of the the available raw material, by providing finances. Through International law communication between countries and States has been achieved Telecommunication has been established, where telephone calls can me made easily across Countries. Digital communication across borders, and a complex web has been developed facilitating International coordination, and subsequent improved Globalization, and economic growth of the participating Countries, through international relations (Yunker 2007).
There are various organizations formed to solve health crisis in various Nations. The organizations have made efforts to solve problems arising from poor health. Without an International law, no measures would be developed to against endemic and epidermic, and many many would be dying as a result of poor response. However, through International law organizations such as Red Cross, and World Health Organization have been developed to respond and save people after crisis such as disasters or health crisis. The rate of infections transmition has been managed through International law, and health care is being provided to all people without discrimination.
Terrorism has been world threat. It mas lowered people’s freedom, has limited Globalization, killed many lives, traumatic losses, and has increases psychological and mental illnesses. The terrorist attacks, are increasing despite the efforts made by many nations to stop terrorism. As States and nations engage in war against terrorism, more and more attacks are reported. It has taken a form of revenge(Kost I 2007, pp. 695-698). For example the United State has struggled to fight the war against Iraq and Afghanistan, but attacks in the States continue to be reported. The International law has intervened the issue and is sorting the issue better. The law is fighting against terrorism and other crimes to ensure that no nation uses violence against another, and no nation hold a revenge. In this case, the law controls the use of nuclear weapons,and ensure no Country uses it’s military force against another county, making the world more peaceful for everybody (Janis 1999).
Many people argue that World government can never be formed,and even the International law is likely to fail. Realists argue that International law can not stand since it has central judiciary or executive to enforce it. They argue that it is only States interested in overturning the International Law’s status can abide to the law. State is considered to have the most authority and believes that no other powers above the state is able to control or manage interaction between two States. Instead, each State should enhance relationship individually with other States of it’s choice, rather than having a dictation of who to relate with from the set higher powers. According to Realists, there is no common principle which can be used by many States to to guide and control actions. They argue that individual State need to control it’s individual actions and keep a consistent check of the neighboring States actions as a way of enhancing a tight security. When solving problems the State is enough and should be able to to use a pragmatic approach without asking assistance from other States or support from above. Realists honors States’ sovereignty and considers states to be unitary. They argues that war is a constant possibility, as it determines the the States’ power. National power is related to national power, and the States’ military power, believing that economy of the State is directly proportional to it’s military power, as it can be easily translated to military power whenever it is required. With these views these people would never support a World government as it would organize a common military power that would respond to the violences likely to arise between nations and would restrict nations from having individual armies, a factor that plays a role in initiating war.
Liberalisms have a different perspective towards International law and the International relation. They consider interaction between States to be determined by both political and economic aspects of various States.They value International system as a means of providing cooperation and interaction opportunities. In this case, the States which seem to oppose cooperation are coerced to cooperate. With this perspective they oppose the International law which considers human rights of all human, and opposes involvement of military forces in wars ( Alblaster 1984 pp. 353).
Realists argue that the government would erode the super State sovereignty. They forget that the sovereignty is composed of people and not the feature in the state. They neglect the fact that the pride of a sovereign State, should be based on the pride of the State’s citizens. If the citizens are satisfied, then the State gets all the right to be proud, and to be considered super State (Cabrera 2006).
Fear of autonomy disappearance has made many nations to oppose International law. They oppose to further integration of Europe. For example the United Kingdom has popular parties, and many Countries with similar parties hold a negative attitude towards the parties in United Kingdom (Craig 2003). On the other hand European Nation is considered to have more dominant and committed members. United Kingdom fears that European Nation is likely to transform from a trade organization to a super State. They just consider autonomy as nations sole prestige, and fail to value their people. Citizens need to be given priority. Their needs need to be considered above other needs, and their rights respected (Pious 1998).
Some people argue that a world government, may deny chances of having rebellions and civil war, which they consider sources of changes in the nations. They go ahead and argue that formation of the government is hard because it would mean nations giving up everything including military and government to the World government.
Marxists believe that capitalisms is based on exploitation of workers by the capital owners They oppose the international law since the law protects the workers against exploitation, through employment and workers rights. Marxists value classes, and struggle to achieve these classes. The struggle involves conflict between opposing classes interest. The international law opposes conflicts and the class struggles which violates human rights.
To conclude, those who believe in international law believe that although there is no world government, there can be an international law. This is based on the benefits that are enjoyed by various individuals, Countries and Nations as a result of International organizations and organizations. Although the liberalisms, Marxists and Realists oppose formation of International law, the law has many benefits.
Alblaster A 1984 The rise and decline of Western Liberalism, Basil Blackwell, New York.
Cabrera L 2006, Political theory of global justice, Routledge, London.
Craig C 2003, Glimmer of a new Leviathan, Columbia University, New York.
CSDI 1976, World issues, University of Michigan, Michigan.
Deudney D 2006, Bounding power Princeton, Princeton University, New Jersy.
Etzioni A 2004, From empire to community, an International Relations’ new approach, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Janis M 1999, Introduction to International Law, Routledge, London.
Lipsky M 1971, Never again war, World Government case, University of Michigan, Michigan.
Kost I 2007, International Law, Leiden International Law, vol. 20 pp. 695-698.
Malcolm S 2003, International Law. Cambridge University, Cambridge.
Pious R 1998, Governments of the World, Oxford University, Oxford.
Torbjorn T 2008, Global democracy: World Government case, Edinburgh University,Edinburgh.
Wynner E 1954, World Federal Government, Fedonat,New York.
Yael T 2000, Who is afraid of a Global State, Routledge, London.
Yunker J 2005, A New Approach in rethinking World Government, Baltmore, America University.
Yunker J 2007, Political Globalization, a Federal World Government’s new vision, Baltmore, America.