Deck 34: International Law and the New World Order

Question 1

When United States military forces entered Pakistan for the express purpose of invading the al Qaeda compound in Abbottabad and either capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, they were not concerned with legal niceties. They had a mission to accomplish and that was all that concerned them. Nevertheless, once the job was done, the legal questions emerged. In global operations such as the bin Laden mission, two legal spheres of influence must be addressed: the national and the international. In the international arena, there is the question of whether the uninvited use of American troops on foreign soil is legally permissible. This question can be handled in two ways. First, it can be answered by direct reference to international law, specifically the United Nations Charter. Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states that, despite earlier articles that limit the use of force against or within a sovereign state, nothing in those articles is intended to "impair the inherent right or individual or collective self-defence." Second, the question can also be answered by reference to the just war theory. The just war theory uses six tests for deciding whether a war is morally justified: (1) just cause, (2) right intention, (3) competent authority, (4) probability of success, (5) proportionality, and (6) last resort. As we shall see, the bin Laden operation passes each of these tests. In the national arena, there is the question of whether the president can use American forces without a congressional declaration of war. This question can be answered by reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, an act passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The act empowers the president of the United States to utilize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who are found to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Like the action authorized by UN Article 51, the Authorization Act relies upon self-defense as justification for the use of forces, so long as that military force is used "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the United States. As we shall see, these are not the only legal justifications for the recent operation in Pakistan, but they will do for now. [See Dionne Searcey, "Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say," The Wall Street Journal (May 6, 2011), p. A6; Jenna Greene, et al., "In Bin Laden Killing, Legal Clarity," The National Law Journal (May 9, 2011), pp. 1 and 4-5; Michael Byers, War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (New York: Grove Press, 2005), p. 7.]
Why should the United States care about international law in a situation like the operation in Pakistan? Explain.

Answer 1

Operation in PAK about International Law
Under the International Law, the authorization act relies upon self-defense as justification for the use of forces, so long as that military force is used to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the US. As the US could see that these are not the only legal justifications for the recent operations in PAK, thus US care about international law in a situation like the operation in PAK.

Question 2

Why did Israel bring this case rather than a private party? Explain.

Answer 2

Bringing of Case
The case is regarding I's objection of the E judge in the construction of wall in the occupied P territory case. The government of I objected the E judge from participating form proceedings. The reason for objection is the judge previous involvement in the case. According to article 17 of the ICJ the judge who involved in the case as an advocate, an agent, a member of national or international court is not eligible for sitting in the ICJ.
The claim against the participation of the E judge is made by I. The private party cannot bring any claim in the given case. The case is related to the construction of the wall in the occupied the P territory. The issue is related to land which belong to P but occupied by I. The occupied land belongs to the country rather than a private party. The parties which have issues with the proceedings will bring the case. Here, the countries are the parties. Therefore, I has bought the case to the ICJ rather than the private party.

Question 3

What are the four new world order theories?

Answer 3

A new world order is a set of introductory circumstances that represents how all states-nation is related to each other on a global scale. The four new world order theories are given below:
1. The economic new world order,
2. The civilizational new world order,
3. The ideological new world order, and
4. The globalized new world order
1. The economic new world order:
The economic new world order undertakes two conditions of the international community as shown below:
1. The community or nation that has grown up economically results healthy and functional economy. But, it cannot be said as a protected economy.
2. The community or states that are economically flawed.
In other words, economically sound nations or community can be considered as fully developed nations and economically fragile community or states can be considered as developing nations.
The civilizational new world order:
This order divides the world into 8 specific civilizations. These civilizations are more or less self-governing and insufficient to make successful coordination with each other or can make coordination with at most two civilizations. A single civilization can be called as a set of people in a list of different states or nations that have some similar and common characteristics such as history of a person, religion, belief and language.
The ideological new world order:
This order sees the whole nation as a single grouped community on the basis of politics. In this view, the whole globe gets divided into two political camps that are shown below:
1. Democracies: this camp was leading by the US and the EU.
2. Autocracies: this camp was leading by R and C.
The purpose of this law is to make a contemporary concert of democracies which will connect with each other for communal protection.
The globalized new world order:
It is the only order that discarded the concept that the states or nation is the chief actor on the international stage. The globalized world does not work in the nation or any state. It contains Multinational Corporation that turns out to be the seat of eventual economic, political and military power.

Question 4

In her influential study of World War I, The Guns of August, the historian Barbara W. Tuchman writes that in 1910 two very different, yet equally popular, views on the prospect of future wars existed on both sides of the Atlantic. One of these views was represented by a book by Norman Angell entitled The Great Illusion. War, Angell argued, had become an untenable option because of the economic connections among the nations of the global community. Any war would have such devastating cons equences that nations could no longer afford to engage in any sort of armed conflict.
In support of this view, a key British military leader, Viscount Esher, contended that a combination of factors, including "commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering," made war in the 20th century "more difficult and improbable" than ever before in the history of civilization (Tuchman, p. 10).
A contradictory position was represented by a German general named Friedrich von Bernhardi who, in a work entitled Germany and the Next War, argued that war was inevitable. In fact, Bernhardi argued, war was a consequence of "natural law." Bernhardi insisted that war was a "biological necessity" and actually the human expression of "the struggle for existence." Bernhardi wrote that, among nation-states, "there can be no standing still." He concluded that any country that fails to move up the evolutionary ladder of development, faces inevitable destruction (Tuchman, pp. 10-11).
Of the two positions, which has been supported by the weight of world history in the 20th century? Explain.

Question 5

When United States military forces entered Pakistan for the express purpose of invading the al Qaeda compound in Abbottabad and either capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, they were not concerned with legal niceties. They had a mission to accomplish and that was all that concerned them. Nevertheless, once the job was done, the legal questions emerged. In global operations such as the bin Laden mission, two legal spheres of influence must be addressed: the national and the international. In the international arena, there is the question of whether the uninvited use of American troops on foreign soil is legally permissible. This question can be handled in two ways. First, it can be answered by direct reference to international law, specifically the United Nations Charter. Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states that, despite earlier articles that limit the use of force against or within a sovereign state, nothing in those articles is intended to "impair the inherent right or individual or collective self-defence." Second, the question can also be answered by reference to the just war theory. The just war theory uses six tests for deciding whether a war is morally justified: (1) just cause, (2) right intention, (3) competent authority, (4) probability of success, (5) proportionality, and (6) last resort. As we shall see, the bin Laden operation passes each of these tests. In the national arena, there is the question of whether the president can use American forces without a congressional declaration of war. This question can be answered by reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, an act passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The act empowers the president of the United States to utilize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who are found to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Like the action authorized by UN Article 51, the Authorization Act relies upon self-defense as justification for the use of forces, so long as that military force is used "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the United States. As we shall see, these are not the only legal justifications for the recent operation in Pakistan, but they will do for now. [See Dionne Searcey, "Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say," The Wall Street Journal (May 6, 2011), p. A6; Jenna Greene, et al., "In Bin Laden Killing, Legal Clarity," The National Law Journal (May 9, 2011), pp. 1 and 4-5; Michael Byers, War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (New York: Grove Press, 2005), p. 7.]
Had bin Laden been captured alive, would he have been tried in the United States or by the International Criminal Court? Explain.

Question 6

What is the central issue in this case?

Question 7

What are the criteria for a just war?

Question 8

In her influential study of World War I, The Guns of August, the historian Barbara W. Tuchman writes that in 1910 two very different, yet equally popular, views on the prospect of future wars existed on both sides of the Atlantic. One of these views was represented by a book by Norman Angell entitled The Great Illusion. War, Angell argued, had become an untenable option because of the economic connections among the nations of the global community. Any war would have such devastating cons equences that nations could no longer afford to engage in any sort of armed conflict.
In support of this view, a key British military leader, Viscount Esher, contended that a combination of factors, including "commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering," made war in the 20th century "more difficult and improbable" than ever before in the history of civilization (Tuchman, p. 10).
A contradictory position was represented by a German general named Friedrich von Bernhardi who, in a work entitled Germany and the Next War, argued that war was inevitable. In fact, Bernhardi argued, war was a consequence of "natural law." Bernhardi insisted that war was a "biological necessity" and actually the human expression of "the struggle for existence." Bernhardi wrote that, among nation-states, "there can be no standing still." He concluded that any country that fails to move up the evolutionary ladder of development, faces inevitable destruction (Tuchman, pp. 10-11).
Which view continues to be popular in the 21st century? Explain.

Question 9

When United States military forces entered Pakistan for the express purpose of invading the al Qaeda compound in Abbottabad and either capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, they were not concerned with legal niceties. They had a mission to accomplish and that was all that concerned them. Nevertheless, once the job was done, the legal questions emerged. In global operations such as the bin Laden mission, two legal spheres of influence must be addressed: the national and the international. In the international arena, there is the question of whether the uninvited use of American troops on foreign soil is legally permissible. This question can be handled in two ways. First, it can be answered by direct reference to international law, specifically the United Nations Charter. Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states that, despite earlier articles that limit the use of force against or within a sovereign state, nothing in those articles is intended to "impair the inherent right or individual or collective self-defence." Second, the question can also be answered by reference to the just war theory. The just war theory uses six tests for deciding whether a war is morally justified: (1) just cause, (2) right intention, (3) competent authority, (4) probability of success, (5) proportionality, and (6) last resort. As we shall see, the bin Laden operation passes each of these tests. In the national arena, there is the question of whether the president can use American forces without a congressional declaration of war. This question can be answered by reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, an act passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The act empowers the president of the United States to utilize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who are found to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Like the action authorized by UN Article 51, the Authorization Act relies upon self-defense as justification for the use of forces, so long as that military force is used "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the United States. As we shall see, these are not the only legal justifications for the recent operation in Pakistan, but they will do for now. [See Dionne Searcey, "Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say," The Wall Street Journal (May 6, 2011), p. A6; Jenna Greene, et al., "In Bin Laden Killing, Legal Clarity," The National Law Journal (May 9, 2011), pp. 1 and 4-5; Michael Byers, War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (New York: Grove Press, 2005), p. 7.]
Had bin Laden been captured alive and tried in the United States, would he have been tried by a civilian court or by a military tribunal? Explain.

Question 10

What legal statutory provision provided grounds for the complaint lodged by Israel?

Question 11

What is the extent of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?

Question 12

In her influential study of World War I, The Guns of August, the historian Barbara W. Tuchman writes that in 1910 two very different, yet equally popular, views on the prospect of future wars existed on both sides of the Atlantic. One of these views was represented by a book by Norman Angell entitled The Great Illusion. War, Angell argued, had become an untenable option because of the economic connections among the nations of the global community. Any war would have such devastating cons equences that nations could no longer afford to engage in any sort of armed conflict.
In support of this view, a key British military leader, Viscount Esher, contended that a combination of factors, including "commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering," made war in the 20th century "more difficult and improbable" than ever before in the history of civilization (Tuchman, p. 10).
A contradictory position was represented by a German general named Friedrich von Bernhardi who, in a work entitled Germany and the Next War, argued that war was inevitable. In fact, Bernhardi argued, war was a consequence of "natural law." Bernhardi insisted that war was a "biological necessity" and actually the human expression of "the struggle for existence." Bernhardi wrote that, among nation-states, "there can be no standing still." He concluded that any country that fails to move up the evolutionary ladder of development, faces inevitable destruction (Tuchman, pp. 10-11).
Which view seems to have been adopted by the international community? Explain.

Question 13

When United States military forces entered Pakistan for the express purpose of invading the al Qaeda compound in Abbottabad and either capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, they were not concerned with legal niceties. They had a mission to accomplish and that was all that concerned them. Nevertheless, once the job was done, the legal questions emerged. In global operations such as the bin Laden mission, two legal spheres of influence must be addressed: the national and the international. In the international arena, there is the question of whether the uninvited use of American troops on foreign soil is legally permissible. This question can be handled in two ways. First, it can be answered by direct reference to international law, specifically the United Nations Charter. Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states that, despite earlier articles that limit the use of force against or within a sovereign state, nothing in those articles is intended to "impair the inherent right or individual or collective self-defence." Second, the question can also be answered by reference to the just war theory. The just war theory uses six tests for deciding whether a war is morally justified: (1) just cause, (2) right intention, (3) competent authority, (4) probability of success, (5) proportionality, and (6) last resort. As we shall see, the bin Laden operation passes each of these tests. In the national arena, there is the question of whether the president can use American forces without a congressional declaration of war. This question can be answered by reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, an act passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The act empowers the president of the United States to utilize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who are found to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Like the action authorized by UN Article 51, the Authorization Act relies upon self-defense as justification for the use of forces, so long as that military force is used "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the United States. As we shall see, these are not the only legal justifications for the recent operation in Pakistan, but they will do for now. [See Dionne Searcey, "Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say," The Wall Street Journal (May 6, 2011), p. A6; Jenna Greene, et al., "In Bin Laden Killing, Legal Clarity," The National Law Journal (May 9, 2011), pp. 1 and 4-5; Michael Byers, War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (New York: Grove Press, 2005), p. 7.]
Did the president overstep his authority in this case when he ordered a military operation within a sovereign nation-state? Why or why not?

Question 14

What was the decision of the majority? Explain.

Question 15

What is the mission of International Criminal Court?

Question 16

In her influential study of World War I, The Guns of August, the historian Barbara W. Tuchman writes that in 1910 two very different, yet equally popular, views on the prospect of future wars existed on both sides of the Atlantic. One of these views was represented by a book by Norman Angell entitled The Great Illusion. War, Angell argued, had become an untenable option because of the economic connections among the nations of the global community. Any war would have such devastating cons equences that nations could no longer afford to engage in any sort of armed conflict.
In support of this view, a key British military leader, Viscount Esher, contended that a combination of factors, including "commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering," made war in the 20th century "more difficult and improbable" than ever before in the history of civilization (Tuchman, p. 10).
A contradictory position was represented by a German general named Friedrich von Bernhardi who, in a work entitled Germany and the Next War, argued that war was inevitable. In fact, Bernhardi argued, war was a consequence of "natural law." Bernhardi insisted that war was a "biological necessity" and actually the human expression of "the struggle for existence." Bernhardi wrote that, among nation-states, "there can be no standing still." He concluded that any country that fails to move up the evolutionary ladder of development, faces inevitable destruction (Tuchman, pp. 10-11).
Which view seems to be supported by most Americans? Explain. Which view seems to be in line with American political and military policy in the 21st century? Explain.

Question 17

When United States military forces entered Pakistan for the express purpose of invading the al Qaeda compound in Abbottabad and either capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, they were not concerned with legal niceties. They had a mission to accomplish and that was all that concerned them. Nevertheless, once the job was done, the legal questions emerged. In global operations such as the bin Laden mission, two legal spheres of influence must be addressed: the national and the international. In the international arena, there is the question of whether the uninvited use of American troops on foreign soil is legally permissible. This question can be handled in two ways. First, it can be answered by direct reference to international law, specifically the United Nations Charter. Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states that, despite earlier articles that limit the use of force against or within a sovereign state, nothing in those articles is intended to "impair the inherent right or individual or collective self-defence." Second, the question can also be answered by reference to the just war theory. The just war theory uses six tests for deciding whether a war is morally justified: (1) just cause, (2) right intention, (3) competent authority, (4) probability of success, (5) proportionality, and (6) last resort. As we shall see, the bin Laden operation passes each of these tests. In the national arena, there is the question of whether the president can use American forces without a congressional declaration of war. This question can be answered by reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, an act passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The act empowers the president of the United States to utilize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" who are found to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Like the action authorized by UN Article 51, the Authorization Act relies upon self-defense as justification for the use of forces, so long as that military force is used "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the United States. As we shall see, these are not the only legal justifications for the recent operation in Pakistan, but they will do for now. [See Dionne Searcey, "Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say," The Wall Street Journal (May 6, 2011), p. A6; Jenna Greene, et al., "In Bin Laden Killing, Legal Clarity," The National Law Journal (May 9, 2011), pp. 1 and 4-5; Michael Byers, War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (New York: Grove Press, 2005), p. 7.]
How is the military action in Pakistan like the recent NATO military action in Libya? How is it unlike that action? Explain.

Question 18

On what point did the dissent contest the majority opinion? Explain.

Question 19

What is the main goal of UNCITRAL?

Question 20

In her influential study of World War I, The Guns of August, the historian Barbara W. Tuchman writes that in 1910 two very different, yet equally popular, views on the prospect of future wars existed on both sides of the Atlantic. One of these views was represented by a book by Norman Angell entitled The Great Illusion. War, Angell argued, had become an untenable option because of the economic connections among the nations of the global community. Any war would have such devastating cons equences that nations could no longer afford to engage in any sort of armed conflict.
In support of this view, a key British military leader, Viscount Esher, contended that a combination of factors, including "commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering," made war in the 20th century "more difficult and improbable" than ever before in the history of civilization (Tuchman, p. 10).
A contradictory position was represented by a German general named Friedrich von Bernhardi who, in a work entitled Germany and the Next War, argued that war was inevitable. In fact, Bernhardi argued, war was a consequence of "natural law." Bernhardi insisted that war was a "biological necessity" and actually the human expression of "the struggle for existence." Bernhardi wrote that, among nation-states, "there can be no standing still." He concluded that any country that fails to move up the evolutionary ladder of development, faces inevitable destruction (Tuchman, pp. 10-11).
Which view is morally correct? Explain.

Question 21

What are the differences between the UCC and the CISG?

Question 22

What is the structure of the World Trade Organization?

Question 23

What are the objectives of the Dispute Settlement Understanding?

Question 24

What is the major purpose of NAFTA?

Question 25

What is the European Union?