Ghana Armed Forces Command and Staff College Programme: International Relations Topic: Issues of...

Ghana Armed Forces Command and Staff CollegeProgramme: International RelationsTopic: Issues of International Law [National v International law] The Experience of the Suez Canal Date: April 8, 2014Time: 1200 1330 hrs Napoleon Kurantin PhD.

Outline of presentation Introduction _ topic

Definition__ International law

Sources of International Law

Domestic Analogies

Predictability and Legitimacy

Application__ Suez Canal

Conclusion_ questions and comments

Topic: Intervention, Institutions, and Regional conflicts: The Suez Canal

Issues in International Law Intervention, Institutions, and Regional conflicts: The Suez CanalIntroduction __ sovereignty and intervention:

According to Nye (1993), with the end of the Cold War, major war has become less likely, but regional conflicts such as the Gulf war will persist, and there will be pressures for outside states and international institutions to intervene.

However, non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states is a basic norm of international law. Non-intervention is a powerful norm because it affects both order and justice.

Issues in International Law Intervention, Institutions, and Regional conflicts: The Suez CanalIntroduction __ sovereignty and intervention:

Order sets a limit on chaos. International anarchy the absence of a higher government is not the same as chaos if basic principles are observed. Sovereignty and non-intervention are two of the principles that provide order in an anarchic world system.

At the same time, non intervention affects justice. Nation states are communities of people who deserve the right to develop a common life within their own state boundaries.

Issues in International Law Intervention, Institutions, and Regional conflicts: The Suez Canal

Introduction __ sovereignty and intervention:

Outsiders should respect their sovereignty and territorial integrity. But not all states fit this ideal. There is often a tension between justice and order that lead to inconsistencies about whether to intervene or not.


Introduction __ intervention:

In its broadest definition, intervention refers to external actions that influence the domestic affairs of another sovereign state.

It could take the form of low coercion involving a speech designed to influence domestic politics in another state. In the 1980s, the U.S. government established Radio Marti to broadcast its messages against Fidel Castro in Cuba.



Economic assistance is another way of influencing the domestic affairs of another country. During the Cold War, American and Soviet intelligence agencies often poured resources into foreign elections.

In the past, South Korea spent a great deal of money to help elect U.S. politicians who were more favorable to the interests of South Korea.



Toward the coercive end of the spectrum (high coercion) is military action. For example, in 1980s, the US bombed Libya in response to state supported terrorism, and the Soviet Union helped one faction fighting a civil war in South Yemen.

Nor is it merely great powers that intervene with force. For instance, in 1979 Tanzania sent troops into Uganda, and Vietnam invaded Cambodia.


Introduction __ Judging intervention:

For the realists, the key values in international politics are order and peace, and the key institutions is the balance of power.

Therefore, for the realists, intervention can be justified when it is necessary to maintain the balance of power and to maintain order.

Realists might justify such interventions on the grounds they preserve order and prevented the possibility of misunderstandings and miscalculations that might escalate to war, particularly nuclear war.



For cosmopolitans, the key value is justice and the key international institution is a society of individuals. Therefore, intervention can be justified if it promotes justice __ it is permissible to intervene on the side of the good.

Hence, during the Cold War, liberal cosmopolitans said that intervention was justified against the apartheid regime in South Africa.



For moralists, the key value in international politics is the autonomy of the state and its people. The key institution is a society of states with certain rules and international law.

The most important of these rules is non-intervention in the sovereign territory of another state. So for the state moralists, intervention is rarely justified.

War, is justified to defend a states territorial integrity or to defend its sovereignty against external aggression.


Definition__ International law

Traditionally, international law consisted of rules and principles governing the relations and dealings of nations with each other, though recently, the scope of international law has been redefined to include relations between states and individuals, and relations between international organizations.

Fundamentally, international law is the term commonly used for referring to laws that govern the conduct of independent nations in their relationships with one another.


Sources of International LawCustomary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law.

Customary international law results when states follow certain practices generally and consistently out of a sense of legal obligation.

Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may take any form that the contracting parties agree upon. Created in 1945, the United Nations is responsible for much of the current framework of international law.


International Law and OrganizationSovereignty and non-intervention are enshrined in international law and organization.

Sometimes, people have problems in understanding international law and organization because they use a domestic analogy.

But international organization is not like domestic government, and international law is not like domestic law.


International Law and OrganizationSovereignty and non-intervention are enshrined in international law and organization.

International organization is not an incipient world government for two reasons.

First, the sovereignty of member states is protected in the charters of most international organizations. Article 2:7 of the Charter of the United Nations says:


International Law and OrganizationNothing in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters within domestic jurisdiction.

In a sense, the organization is not an effort to replace the nation- states.

Development of Sovereignty1648 Principle of sovereignty is first articulated in the Peace of WestphaliaEnded Thirty Years War by giving rulers authority to determine religion within their own territory

1713 Principle of sovereignty is solidified in the Treaty of Utrecht [This was the treaty whereby the struggle between Great Britain and France known in Europe as the War of the Spanish Succession, and in America sometimes as "Queen Anne's War", was brought to a close in 1713. By it France ceded to Great Britain her claims in North America to the Hudson bay territories, to Newfoundland, and to Acadia. ]

1945 Sovereign equality of members enshrined in United Nations charter

SovereigntySovereignty is the defining characteristic of the state:

An entity is sovereign when it is the highest political authority in the system.By definition, no other unit has coercive authority within a state's territory, so therefore states are sovereign.All sovereign states have nominally equal authority.

Issues in International Law Intervention, Institutions, and Regional conflicts: The Suez CanalDomestic AnalogiesThe other reason that international organization is not incipient world government is because of its weakness.

There is an international judiciary in the form of the International Court of Justice, which consists of 15 judges elected for 9 year terms by the United Nations, but the International Court of Justice is not a world supreme court. States may refuse its jurisdiction, and a state may refuse to accept its judgments', even if the state has accepted the courts jurisdiction. In the 1980s, for example, the Reagan administration refused to accept an International Court of Justice ruling that the United States had acted illegally in mining the harbors' of Nicaragua.


Domestic AnalogiesInternational law basically reflects the fragmented nature of international politics. The weak sense of community means there is less willingness to obey or restrain oneself out of sense of obligation or acceptance of authority.

The absence of a common executive with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force means that sovereign states are in the realm of self-help and in the realm of force and survival.

And when matters of survival come up, law usually takes second place.


Predictability and Legitimacy Nonetheless, international law and organization are an important part of political reality because they affect the way states behave.

States have an interest in international law for two reasons: predictability and legitimacy.


Predictability and Legitimacy Predictability:As interdependence grows, contacts among nations grow and there are increasing opportunities for friction __ e .g. trade, tourism, diplomatic missions etc.

Handling such issues by international law and agreed principles depoliticizes them and makes them predictable.

Predictability is necessary for transactions to flourish and for the orderly handling of the conflicts that inevitably accompany them.


Predictability and Legitimacy Legitimacy:Legitimacy is a second reason why governments have an interest in international law. If a states act are perceived as illegitimate, the costs of a policy will be higher.

Therefore, states appeal to international law and organization to legitimize their own policies or delegitimize others, and that often shapes their tactics and outcomes.

The Suez Canal crisis of 1956 provides a good example.


Predictability and Legitimacy The Suez Canal was built by the British and French in the nineteenth century, and became important for Britains trade routes to India. In 1956, about a quarter of British imports came through the Suez Canal.

In July 1956, President Gamal Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Canal. Sir Anthony Eden, the British prime minister, saw this a major threat to Britain. He regarded Nasser as a new Hitler, and he drew analogies to the 1930s and Britains failure to take a stand when Hitler entered the Rhineland.


Predictability and Legitimacy Britain feared that Nasser appeal to Arab nationalism would undercut Britains position in the Middle East, and worried about the fact that Nasser had accepted Soviet arms, this, of course, being at the height of the Cold War.

A Letter to President Dwight Eisenhower

In the nineteen-thirties Hitler established his position by a series of carefully planned movements. These began with occupation of the Rhineland and were followed by successive acts of aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the West. His actions were tolerated and excused by the majority of the population of Western Europe. . . . Similarly the seizure of the Suez Canal is, we are convinced, the opening gambit in a planned campaign designed by Nasser to expel all Western influence and interests from Arab countries. He believes that if he can get away with this, and if he can successfully defy eighteen nations, his prestige in Arabia will be so great that he will be able to mount revolutions of young officers in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. We know that he is already preparing a revolution in Iraq, which is most stable and progressive. These new Governments will effect be Egyptian satellites if not Russian ones. They will have place their united oil resources under the

A Letter to President Dwight Eisenhower _ cont

control of a United Arabia led by Egypt and under Russian influence. When that moment comes Nasser can deny oil to western Europe and we here shall be at his mercy.

---Prime Minister Anthony Eden, 1956.

* Paradigms, Theories, and Levels of Analysis


Predictability and Legitimacy In August and early September of 1956, Britain and the United States proposed a Suez Canal users association, saying Egypt could nationalize the canal, but the control would rest with those who used it for shipping. Nasser rejected that compromise.In the meantime, Britain had developed a secret plan with France and Israel. Israel, which had been suffering from cross-border guerrilla attacks that Nasser instigated, would invade Egypt. Britain and France would then intervene on the pretext there was a threat to the Suez Canal.


Predictability and Legitimacy Thus Israel crossed into the Sinai region of Egypt, arguing it was acting out of self defense. It appealed to Article 51 of the UN Charter that permits self-dense as the one legitimate use of force.

As Israel advanced into the Sinai toward the Suez Canal, Britain and France said they had to intervene to prevent any damage to the canal. The UN Security Council discussed the crisis, rejected the pretext, and called for a cease-fire.


Predictability and Legitimacy Britain and France used their vetoes to prevent the cease-fire. They wanted the intervention to keep going until they could get rid of Nasser.Dag Hammarskjold, the UN secretary general, working with Canadian foreign minister Lester Pearson, devised a plan to separate the Israelis and the Egyptians by inserting a UN peacekeeping force.

Then the British and the French would no longer have a pretext for their intervention. A resolution in the General Assembly, where there was no veto, authorized a UN force in the Sinai region.


Predictability and Legitimacy The United States did not support its European allies, worrying that their intervention would antagonize Arab nationalists and increase the opportunities for the Soviet Union in the Middle East. Instead, the United States backed Pearson and Hammarskjolds plan. To add to the pressure on Britain, the United States refused to let the International Monetary Fund (another international organization) provide a backup loan to Britain, whose pound sterling was now under pressure.The British and the French caved in and agreed to a cease-fire. The Soviets at this time were busy intervening in Hungary, which was trying to achieve its own freedom.


Predictability and Legitimacy The British and French had to accept that the cease-fire partly because of American pressure, and partly because they had been caught on their own legal pretext. There was now another way of separating the Israelis and the Egyptians and preventing damage to the canal.On November 15, the first UN expeditionary force was inserted into the Sinai between the opposing forces, and later in December, the United Nations took on the task of clearing the ships that had been sunk in the canal.


Conclusion _lessons The use and abuse of international law and organizations played an essential part in the politics of the Suez crisis.__ time for a review of the Veto power status of a few

In major conflicts of interest, international law may not restrain states, but if often help shape the flow of policy. __ Iraq war and U.S. elections

National v International Law

THE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

DefinitionInternational law is the collection of rules and norms that states and other actors feel an obligation to obey in their mutual relations and commonly do obey

Conwey W. Henderson, Understanding International Law, 2010.


DefinitionIn the past, international law was commonlydescribed as the law that regulates the relations between states, amongst each other or the system of legal norms regulating mutual relations between states, or the set of rules recognized by states and concerning their external relations, or the set of rules binding within the international community.


An interesting definition of international law was formulated in the 1970s by a Russian international lawyer Prof. G. I.Tunkin: contemporary international law is the aggregate of norms which are created by agreement between states of different social systems, reflect the concordant wills of states and have a generally democratic character,regulate relations between them in the process of struggle and cooperation in the direction of ensuring peace and peaceful coexistence and freedom andindependence of peoples, and are secured when necessary by coercion effectuated by states individually or collectively.


Some examples of more recent definitions of international law include:The system of law regulating the interrelationship of sovereign states and their rights and duties with regard to one another. In addition, certain international organizations (such as the United Nations), companies, and sometimes individuals (e.g. in the sphere of human rights) may have rights or duties under international law.(Oxford Dictionary of Law, 1997, p. 240)

THE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Today, international law refers to those rules and norms which regulate the conduct of states and other entities which at any time are recognized as being endowed with international personality, for example international organizations and individuals, in their relations with each other (Rebecca M.M. Wallace, International Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 1995, p. 1).


International law is the body of rules which are legally binding on states in their intercourse with other states. These rules are primarily those which govern the relations of states, but states are not the only subjects of international law. International organizations and, to some extent, also individuals may be subjects of rights conferred and duties imposed by international law (Oppenheims International Law, ninth edition, Volume I Peace, edited by Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts (London: Longman, 1996), p. 4.


The Roles of International Law:

To arrange for the cooperation most actors wish to have most of the time;

To identify the membership of an international society of sovereign states;

To regulate the competing interests of the various actors and to carry their agreements into the future;

THE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWTo empower weaker states as they press for change against the will of the powerful;

To promote justice;

To outlaw war.


Is international law a real law?International law is practiced on a dailybasis in the Foreign Offices, national courts and other governmental organs of states;The evidence is that reference to international law has been a normal part of the process of decision-making I. BrownlieStates do not claim that they are above the law or that international law does not bind them;


The overwhelming majority of international legal rules are consistently obeyed;It is probably the case that almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time (L. Henkin, How Nations Behave, p. 47).


Basic characteristics of international law:International law has only a limited number of developed legal institutions; In comparison with national law, international law is decentralised:

THE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWBasic characteristics of international lawDecentralised international law-making;Decentralised international law enforcement;Decentralised, voluntary international law adjudication.

THE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWWhy is international law binding onStates and other actors?The command theory;__the command of the sovereign, backed up by sanctions.

The consensual theory/consensus;__ decisions as free agents entering intoconsensualrelationships.Natural law. ___ The first is that, when we focus on God's role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human's role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality.


Conclusion _lessons Law is part of the power struggle within national politics.__ governments find it important to make legal arguments or to take resolutions of international organizations into account shows they are not completely significant: governments may be trapped by their own legal excuses.

The rise of International Law over Domestic Law: The Case of the International Court of Justice (ICC)

Issues in International Law

Thanks for your attention

Comments ?Questions

*****************Source: dss.ucsd.edu/~lwimberl/Lecture01.ppt****************Source: https://www.google.com.gh/?gws_rd=cr&ei=ds1CU570EITjOt-4gJgB#q=Rights+and+International+Law+ppt&start=10*Source: http://legaltheoryandjurisprudence.blogspot.com/2008/05/command-theory-of-law-brief-summary-and.html

*Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/**

Date post:	13-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	charity-snow
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Ghana Armed Forces Command and Staff College Programme: International Relations Topic: Issues of...

Documents