Powerful State Complying with the International Law

Introduction

International Relations in the contemporary world matters. Mentioning international relations we focus on the interaction of nation-states as well as non-governmental institutions that get involved in fields revolving around economics and more importantly in politics. In the academic scope, the study of this aspect makes an individual richly connected with the complex global demands based on international relations and issues that are related to national boundaries. Additionally, the study and practice of international relations are deemed as interdisciplinary subjects comprising economic fields, history, and political science. Robust comprehension of the latter areas of study helps observe human rights, other concerns such as globalization, global poverty, environment, and political environment. Also, this study will be deemed incomplete if it addresses international relations and leaves realism outside. Readers might ask why realism and the response will be, realism is the oldest international relations theory.

In contrast to what is referred to as liberalism and idealism, realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics whose emphasis is on the competitive and conflictual side. People who believe and practice realism are known as realists, and they consider the principal actors in maintaining the international arena as the states. This consideration comes out as the state is much concerned with its security, pursuit of national interests, and struggle for power. On the bad side of realism, it is the fact that nations are much concerned with their power and self-interests, which creates an attitude of doubt on keeping and observing the ethical norms that regulate relations among states. The presence of doubt within nations has great potential to cause injustice across states and nations, resulting in conflicts. Based on realism powerful states as a cause of conflicts is seen when they act in accordance with international laws. The powerful states have been repeatedly found to break the international laws when they are interested to do so. However, in this context, we need to address how powerful states can become compliant with international law.

International Law

The existence of harmony and balance of the globe is regulated by a body of laws. These laws are formulated and enforced by a collective body, with representatives all over the world. These individuals generally have generated a set of laws known as international law (IL) which is a set of rules generally regarded and accepted by the members of the world. These rules serve as binding between states and between nations. More importantly, the rules serve as the stabilizing framework for stability and achieving an organized international relation (IR). However, the international laws sometimes differ from state-based legal systems making them applicable to some countries and not to other private citizens (Beck 275). In other incidences, national laws, especially on those of powerful countries might become international law after delegating national jurisdiction treaties to supranational tribunals. When making these international laws it is always important to ensure that the rules are guided by piecemeal international customs, agreements, largely voluntary, unity enforcing, and accords. Further, the international laws should be characterized by charters and legal precedents of the international court of justice, which is known as the world court. All the members agree voluntarily to follow and adhere to the set agreement, and violation should attract penalties and punishments.

International Law and International Relations

Some scholars use international relations and international law interchangeably. Although the two do not mean the same thing but have a very close relationship. When addressing the broader political system we cannot fail to address the role of international law in ensuring successful international relations. The latter area of concern has been of concern following the increase in global politics, and the aftermath of war paradigm on realism, which in common practice have been deemed virtually irrelevant when it comes to high politics (Scott 313). In this context, international politics are regarded to have little or no inherent significance on the concept of power and international law. Thus the powerful countries retain the power-law dichotomy, which works best in hindering moves towards achieving a sophisticated significance of international politics and international laws. Based on these arguments we can generalize that the aspect of international relations and laws are under the control of powerful countries.

Realism and International Law

Realism is a key component that can offer the best picture of modern international politics. This aspect goes hand in hand with modern realism, also known as political realism. This aspect emphasizes the role of the nation-state making assumptions that all nation-states are guided and motivated by national interests and not moral concerns. Every state is defined to show concern only on its interests in the bid to preserve its autonomy and its territorial integrity. Now, after securing these two national interests then some nations might shift their interests on securing more resources, others wishing to expand political and economic systems. However, in order to achieve these interests, the key determinant is the power, national power. The latter power is defined in terms of military, economic, diplomatic, or cultural resources (Orsi et al. 1). However, based on realism power is relative, where the international system shows concern for the anarchical environment. For this case, all the states have no option but exclusively rely on owns resources in securing their interests, and enforcing what they have agreed upon with other states. Adhering to these agreements, therefore, results in the domestic and international order.

However, most of the power states have violated the agreement for their own interests. Violation of the set laws results in conflicts, it is, therefore, advisable for these most powerful countries to adhere to the set laws and obey the international law. Although, there have been difficulties for the realists to portray international law ability, on occasions when these powerful states decide to violate the international law serves their interests. We can therefore state that realism is unable to give an account of the third world commitment and contribution to international law (Scott 318). The reason for this argument is the fact that these countries are less powerful and thus with little or no say in the international context. International law cannot address the grievances but instead uses the law for its own benefits. We can therefore conclude that the position of realism in international law has been positivism and thus non-legal. This makes it incapable of influencing the implementation of such laws.

Realism and International Relations

Discussion of political realism and international realism to some readers seems to them extremely unrealistic, idealistic, and even impractical and therefore a waste of time. This is based on what the majority of the political theorists have done, imparting a belief that realists view the world through a power-based political dimension.  Additionally, realists of the contemporary world have a focus on radical and extreme realism (Art, Robert and Robert Jervis issues 13). They have also a great concern for classical realism whose emphasis is on the national interests and that everything done is for the reason of the state. The concept of realism and international relations have been intertwined, realists get much concerned with the constraints that have been imposed on politics by the nature of human beings. The reason why we address human beings is that they are egocentric and common practice there is a lack of international government.

The absence of an international government has been associated with some issues. In the same way, this factor among others contributes to conflicts in the international realm, with the key role players in this context are the states, with the main concern being on power and security. Further, the states were seen to show less emphasis on mortality, as an important nature of humans. The reason for mentioning human nature is because this is the starting point of classical realism. According to classical realism, human nature is characterized by egoism and self-interests which corrupts moral principles. According to Thucydides, who wrote the history of realism, people give more weight to self-interest over mortality, thus consideration on whether right or wrong cannot turn people aside of the opportunities that lie within their superiority in terms of strength (Bell e12403). Further, in the contemporary world, neo-realists, deem the absence of government to be the key determinant of international political outcomes. Similarly, the lack of a government means that there is no common rulemaking and authority, this is the reason why the realists argue that there is no international arena, and thus the entire system is a self-help system.

Additionally, from this perspective of self-interest, generally the political realism, each state makes what it makes for survival with a free definition and each country has its interest and pursuance to power. The latter condition has made the majority of the powerful states override the shaping of the relations, and primarily enforce an order for them to survive independently. Moreover, these powerful states do all what it takes to increase their power, making them engage in power-balancing to discourage their potential aggressors (Bell e12403). In extreme conditions, the strong nations get engaged in wars to prevent the competing nations from becoming stronger. Therefore, with this approach mortality in international relations is not an issue that raises concern. This portrays how the international community and the relations have foregone morals, instead, morality should be addressed at the state level.

Compliance with International Law

The view on realism in the contemporary states and nations seems to change. We reach this statement as significant sectors and governments from the powerful states have started complying with international law. However, it is important to note that the compliance is not because of discovering the impact of international law, but out of goodwill to maintain good conduct with the low-power states and more importantly create aggressive international relations. More so, a common reason why the powerful states get involved in the international laws is because of the little cost of compliance, otherwise, they would not do so. In a bid to prove this reality, Heath Pickering provided various reasons why states whether weak or strong obey international law. In his discussion, he tries to respond to the question about compliance or not to.

Heath state that states of today’s world, regardless of their power have been compelled to stick to behavior that accords to the legal laws and accepted norms. According to Goldstein and colleagues compliance to legal issues has been simultaneous almost across all states however, the degree of compliance is different. In order to achieve comprehensive information on compliance states considered to possess the same power were assessed. From the report, it was discovered that compliance is not limited to weak and powerful states but also to states deemed to be comparatively similar (Elvy 75). Additionally, compliance within the powerful states also varies, similarly as in weak states. The reason for this is the commonalities in the weak states which depend on external aid for their development. Their engagement and involvement in international law and the signing of treaties is to help them acquire aid from the powerful states.

Further, in order to understand the aspect of compliance, the realism theory can explain this best. The concept of realism is a naturally doubtful process that entails involvement into formal agreements that would directly impact state behavior. Based on realism the guiding factor is always self-interests and therefore compliance to the standards of the international treaties, for the powerful states are only guided by their interests to do so, even when the treaties do not exist. In addition, some other political philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau revealed that international laws are ineffective and their result is international competition (Vorderbruggen 2). Contrary to the latter philosopher, Hobbes is a bit optimistic and argues that international law would help eliminate much trouble and make states live in peace as opposed to wars. However, there is a dilemma when it comes to the obligations of international law as they seem to have little or no influence on powerful states.

Having it in mind that states interest is central still, there are options to think about. The aspect that makes these states together and still believes in the enforcement of agreements is liberalism. This is because liberals have a great understanding of the importance and role of interstate relations (Koh 2599). Now, following this understanding, states agree to comply with the accepted norms and follow them. However, it is not always that after conforming to the laws the states must obey them mostly because of the nature of the state. It must then be noted that nations do not comply with international laws because they lack the obligation to carry on, but they do so if they feel that they are legitimate and fit to the accepted norms.

Realism in Practice

Realism has been in practice with real case studies in the contemporary world. Various case studies can be used to expound on realism but in this context, we will focus on the Islamic State group. Although people might wonder how and why the Islamic state, but Islam is a globally known group though not officially recognized. The aspect of statehood among this group is because they have possession of the significant territory in Iraq and Iran. Just as on hat is explained about realism the Islamic state count on self-help to guarantee their own security, which is confined under two strategies, the balance of power and deterrence. Based on the balance of power the state has made flexible allies while on deterrence they engage in treaties, which are evidence for a loose coalition and the reason why states like the US and Russia attacked the Islamic State groups. In this context, the US and Russia are the powerful state or the superior forces, whose aim was to gain control over the territory that was under Islam rule. Based on realists the Islamic nation's attempt is a cause of terror and a cause of counterbalance of the western influence and for this reason, they were extremely cautioned by the powerful states. Therefore, the highest goal for a state's survival should show concern for ethics and responsibilities but not moral principles.

Works Cited

Art, Robert J. and Robert Jervis, International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues 13

Beck, Robert J. "Teaching international law as a partially online course: The hybrid/blended approach to pedagogy." International Studies Perspectives 11.3 (2010): 273-290.

Bell, Duncan. "Political realism and international relations." Philosophy Compass 12.2 (2017): e12403.

Elvy, Stacy-Ann. "Theories of State Compliance with International Law: Assessing the African Union's Ability to Ensure State Compliance with the African Charter and Constitutive Act." Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 41 (2012): 75.

Goldstein, Joshua S., Jon C. Pevehouse and Sandra Whitworth, International Relations, 3rd. Canadian Edition (Toronto: Pearson, 2013).

Koh, Harold Hongju. "Why do nations obey international law." Yale lj 106 (1996): 2599.

McGlinchey, Stephen. International relations theory. E-International Relations, 2017.

Milner, Helen V. "International Relations." A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (2017): 214-225.

Orsi, Davide, J. R. Avgustin, and Max Nurnus. "The Practice of Realism in International Relations." E-International Relations (2018).

Scott, Shirley V. "International law as ideology: Theorizing the relationship between international law and international politics." Eur. J. Int'l L. 5 (1994): 313.

Vorderbruggen, Katherine. "A Rules-Based System? Compliance and Obligation in International Law."