Internationallaw can be observed through an idealist or realist perspective in the currentworld system. International law, from an idealist perspective, can be simplifiedwith the phrase “law is found not made” (Nantais, 2018). Laws are found due tothe fact that they are solutions that states have put in place to prohibit the repetitionof actions that are deemed immoral.
The fundamental principles of justice canbe discovered through reason, which is then asserted into international law,with the expectations that justice will be served universally. (Nantais, 2018).An example is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which aims at allowingindividuals to be “born free and equal in dignity and rights” (United Nations,n.d.
). Failing to abide by the rulesset before them face consequences that fit the justice system of their state. Therealist theory, however, believes that the world is surrounded by conflictedevents. As evident in the issues occurring globally, power is held as the supremacy,while morality in decision-making appears to be inferior.
Putting power beforemorals can lead to a political misjudgment of a conflict. The abuse of power cancause inhumane punishments in the future, as long-term benefits are rarelyconsidered (Nantais, 2018). An example wouldbe the United States’ intervention in the Syrian Civil War by providing Syrianrebels with weapons, funding’s and training to fight the Islamic state. Now,the Syrian rebels, known as ISIS, has used the US weapons and intelligence tocommit terrorist attacks that have killed and displaced thousands of civilians throughoutthe world (Chengu, 2017). The international law for self-defense now indicatesthat nations can “lawfully use force against deadly nonstate actors in anothercountry if the government of that country is unable or unwilling to suppressthe threat within its borders” (Scharf, 2016).
(300 words) Characteristics ofstates in the current world system can affect international laws in either apositive or negative way. The laws that make up the international laws are putin place by states to prohibit other states from engaging in “unlawful” actionsinternationally. The quality of international laws is deemed acceptable only becausethey are made and approved by the states that must follow them, making it abinding quality.
The consequences of the international law are the absence ofinstitutionalized enforcement, such as police forces and an international courtsystem. This may lead to the argument that international laws are not properly enforceable,as they are not “true” laws with punishments. Some individuals in states maychoose to follow national laws because of its enforcement and punishments forcrimes, whereas international laws appear to be more lenient or less severe(Dixon, 2013).
An example of characteristics of states affecting internationallaw is Iran. Iran holds pride in its nuclear development over the centuries, asit is at the core of their culture, science, religion, and politics, includingthe interference of the West. Iran claims that their nuclear program is for self-proclamationthat they are an inferior, “advanced and sovereign nation” (Fisher, 2015).
Iran’snuclear program is not only an issue to their domestic politics, but also to internationallaw. In January 2017, Iran’s ballistic missile test, according to the US, hadbreached the 2017 P5+1 nuclear deal, as well as the UN Security Council (UNSC)Resolution 2231. Russia, however, being one of Iran’s allies may use their powerand their permanent seat in UNSC to inhibit a draft resolution against Iran (Bagheri & Karimabad, 2017). This can be seen as one of the many examplesof states getting away with internationally unlawful actions.