The Legitimacy of International Law – PLSC 359: Global Governance

Throughout many PPEL and political science classes that I have taken at UR, the topic of the legitimacy of both the enforcement of and theory of international law seems to always come up. While the United Nations, NATO, NAFTA, the World Bank, and many other multi-national organizations have been put in place to try to govern and safeguard the international community, there is not much damage that these organizations can do economically, militarily, or politically that really strikes fear into states. In reality while these organizations have great motives and are filled with hard working and idealistic leaders their ability to enforce international law, especially the United Nations, is quite minimal.

The most prominent example of the United Nations lack of authority is Russia’s numerous international conflicts that have gone unchecked. The current situation in Crimea has been going on for almost three years now and despite the United Nations publicly condemning Russia’s invasion and adopting a resolution in 2014 that “reaffirmed Ukraine’s unity and territorial integrity,” and declared that Russia’s annexation of the region had “no validity,” no real action has been taken. Russian troops and Crimean rebels continue to fight against Ukrainian soldiers today, and the region obviously lacks any political stability.

Furthermore, news has come out recently that Vladimir Putin authorized the assassination of a former KGB official that defected to England. Will there be any UN punishment for this act? My instinct is that ultimately there will be none.

Personally, I think that the United Nations should have a much larger military presence for matters exactly like these. If breaking international law meant risking the security of your state and its citizens, then I believe there would be a serious change in states willingness’ to break UN or other multinational laws.

What does the class think? Should the UN have a large military arm? Should more strict economic sanctions and trade borders be enforced? What changes can be made to ensure that international laws and regulations are followed by the whole international community?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/world/europe/alexander-litvinenko-poisoning-inquiry-britain.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47443#.VqFC2cArLow

Julia Rivara says:

March 10, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Kevin Bales spoke on the difficulty of the UN exercising too much power, and losing support as it plays the politics game globally. Though I understand and agree to an extent with what you are saying. As of now, the UN lacks legitimacy as evidence of countries such as Russia, continuing to do what they wish with little repercussions. Let’s be honest, Vladimir Putin does not care that the UN sanctions him for his actions. If he did, he would not continue his action sin Crimea or the Ukraine. Powerful leaders, who have the desire to continue and expand their control, barely give attention to words of admonishment; however, they would pay attention to economic and military sanctions.

The issue in the above situation lies in the fact that Russia sits on the Security Council, and thus the UN is unable to push through formal sanctions. Though it is not just Russia, but all countries ont he Security Council which push for their own agendas, the US included. For me, there is little question that UN should have more power and influence in admonishing economically and militarily countries who continually push back and violate international law. It is awful to think that the only way things get done is through threat of retribution, but realistically that is the way in which the world works in the modern day. With this said, attempting to implement this concept, and the hope of compliance of international laws, depends on reform of the UN and an overhaul of the power and control of the Security Council.