global issues - international security

GLOBAL ISSUESINTERNATIONAL SECURITY

State sovereignty vs. international governance

Who am I?

Matthias Archie [email protected]

Tasks (within bachelor in the Social/Public safety and security) Sociology Internationalization

Security in an international perspective Study trip to Berlin Erasmus exchange Intensive Programme ‘A better tomorrow’

Other

Who are you?

mailto:[email protected]

Aim of this lecture

Introduction to international security Tension between

State sovereignty International governance

Short overview of international organizations

Contents

1. Introduction2. Humanitarian intervention3. Democracy & good governance4. International criminal tribunals5. Conclusions

State

sovereigntyState

sovereignty

International policy

International policy

1. Introduction

Classical ‘Law of Nations’ National sovereignty (freedom of governance) States = hermetically closed entities

Peace of Westfalen (1648) (after the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War) Norm of non-intervention

‘one state cannot interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination’

Co-existence, but hardly cooperation

1. Introduction

Globalization (20th century) Interdependence Rise of international organizations

Trend States are concerned about the internal

activity of other states

Out of self interest (ex. economical, ecological, …)

Universal basic norms (ex. human rights)

1. Introduction

End of the Cold War The international community becomes

more and more assertive Political and moral level Even military intervention

1. Introduction

Three intervention possibilities Humanitarian intervention (Re)building democracy and good

governance Penal sanctions

2. Humanitarian intervention Legal according to international law?

‘the armed interference in a sovereign state by another with the stated objective of ending or reducing suffering within the first state’

Suffering out of … civil war humanitarian crisis crimes by the state, including genocide

2. Humanitarian intervention

Opponents It violates the sovereignty of the State

Defenders States loose their sovereignty if they violate

human rights

2. Humanitarian intervention Influence of globalization on

International Law Classical international law

Every state is sovereign and equal The international community can’t intervene in

internal affairs New discourse

Intervention is possible in certain affairs like … Genocide War crimes Crimes against humanity

2. Humanitarian intervention New terminology

UN reform priorities in 2000 (initiative from Kofi Annan)

‘Responsibility to protect’ From the point of view of those seeking or needing

support, rather than those who may be considering intervention

The primary responsibility rests with the state concerned(international intervention must be an exception)

Also Responsibility to Prevent Responsibility to Rebuild

2. Humanitarian intervention ICISS

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

Criteria for humanitarian intervention Only military intervention

Large-scale loss of life and ethnic cleansing This is the last option (first: prevention, political or

economical sanctions, …)


Also humanitarian intervention when Exposure of the population to mass starvation

and/or civil war because of Situations of state collapse Overwhelming natural or environmental

catastrophes

BUT: states often have other motives to intervene Examples …


Question? Do States have überhaupt the right to intervene

without the UN Security Council authorization?

UN Security Council Is the only organ with the power to authorize the use

of force

Problem The Security Council is selective and inconsistent

For example: no intervention in Kosovo en Darfur(although the criteria were fulfilled)


Dilemma Can the NATO, EU, African Union, … intervene

nevertheless unilaterally (without UN authorization)?

If they don’t: thousands of victims

BUT: it’s damaging the multilateral UN system

Talking Darfur to Death

The world has been discussing the genocide in Darfur for more than three years. But some 200,000 deaths later, it has yet to take effective action to force the Sudanese government to stop sponsoring the mass murder, rape, torture and forcible evictions being carried out on its orders in the region.

The United Nations has repeatedly disgraced itself by its halfhearted and inadequate response to the gravest human rights challenge it has faced since it failed the same genocide test in Rwanda more than a decade ago.

The New York Times, march 21, 2007

Mr. Lonely

There was the “war of the Yugoslav succession” in the 1990s, when the United Nations refused serious strikes against the Serbs — even after the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, which left 7,400 dead in the “greatest atrocity in Europe since World War II.” When the world did act against Serbia in 1999, it did so not through the United Nations, but the United States and NATO, and then without the blessing of the Security Council.

The New York Times, December 10, 2006

2. Humanitarian intervention Two other types of intervention

Pro-democratic intervention Pre-emptive (preventive) self-defense

2. Humanitarian intervention Pro-democratic intervention

Intervention of a State or international community Unilateral Based on an invitation of a (democratic) government

to intervene After authorization of the UNSC

in order to protect democracy

Examples: Grenada (by the US) Panama (by the US) Haiti (by the US, after authorization)

2. Humanitarian intervention Preventive self-defense

Unilateral Traditional right of self-defence

‘… an entitlement to use armed force in order to defend itself against an attack, to repel the attackers, and to expel them from its territory’

‘…initiation of military action based on a perceived imminent attack and identifies clear advantages in striking first’

National interests In stead of the interests of the civilians

Recent famous example …


Illegal If it appears that the attacked state never

wanted to attack the intervening State

International terrorism Better solution

Removing feeding floor Specific sanctions Better cooperation

3. Democracy and good governance International law

From co-existence to cooperation

International organizations Did not dare to intervene in ‘the way’ their

Member States were governed There were too large ideological differences

3. Democracy and good governance

After the Cold War Less ideological differences More and more democratic constitutional states

(from the 1990s)

3. Democracy and good governance Democratic reforms

Necessary condition for a good governance: transparency of the decision-making process, the access to government documents, the fight against the corruption, a good functioning bureaucracy, an efficient financial control, reporting and evaluation systems.


International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Pioneers Attached as firsts conditions of `good

governance’ to get financial aid

From the1990s Anti-corruption Human rights Participation of citizens Transparency


Important concept: `ownership’ Not overpowering conditions But those states got space to stipulate their own

policy strategy


Also other international organizations EU

Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) `[EU] is founded… on the principles of liberty,

democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the constitutional state, which principles the Member States have in common’

Only democratic countries can join

UN and OSCE (Organization for Security & Co-operation in Europe)

Assist states in building a constitutional framework Observe and monitor for free and fair elections

For example: last weekend: elections in Georgia

Over 460 OSCE observers

monitoring Georgia election04/01/2008


Provisional UN government 3 regions in Croatia (1996-1998) (after Balkan war) East-Timor (1999) Kosovo (after military campaign of NATO in 1999)

Kosovo: 4 pillars1. Police and Justice: UN2. Civil Administration: UN3. Democratization and Institution Building: OSCE4. Reconstruction and Economic Development : EU

Since 2001: provisional self-government

At this moment: big discussion within the UN about the future of Kosovo

4. International criminal tribunals Core

When the international community failed to prevent serious crimes

Possibility to exercise jurisdiction over persons who are responsible for these serious crimes

Generally It helps the reconstruction of the country +

international justice

4. International criminal tribunals International criminal tribunals

To put an end to impunity of War crime Crime against humanity Genocide

Aim To exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those

responsible for international crimes To help the victims themselves obtain justice To discourage future criminals To contribute to the peace in the touched areas

4. International criminal tribunals

4. International criminal tribunals

International Criminal Court The Hague 2002 104 states Not

The US, China, Russia

Complementarity principle The first responsibility at national Courts (the ICC is

a court of last resort)

5. Conclusions

Tension between globalization and localization Overall values

Admirable But, sometimes inconsistent

Budgetary Lack of political will Pragmatism

Consequence `Responsibility to protect’ only an emerging standard

Important question! What’s the international community worth if the largest member

(the US) doesn’t always accept the basic values and norms? Whats’s the UN Security Council worth if one of it’s permanent

members uses frequently its veto (ex. China in Darfur)?

5. Conclusions

Danger Elitist globalization without local anchoring

Therefore very important: Always the first responsibility at the state itself

Questions?

global issues - international security

Business