INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INSTITUTIONS: GLOBAL GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS

Albeit I think of the world order as hierarchical, the traditional view on world order is still based on the Westphalian system that claims equality amongst states as an incident of having no apex of sovereignty in world politics. This sovereign equality that creates the notion of an anarchic world order is the foundational principle of the international legal system. In fact, international law, particularly the UN Charter, recognizes the sovereign equality as its first principle. In this sense, technically speaking, anarchy exists, at least as a front that covers up the existence of hierarchy in world politics. Anarchy is recognized legally; hence, if there exists inequality in power and authority, it exists socially.

The use of the notion of sovereignty and equality in international law simplifies the complex world order in order to manage it. Despite of the simplification, international law and institutions somehow mitigate the inequality in what is thought of as an anarchic world. They also mitigate the seeming anarchy, which is brought about by states that claim themselves as sovereign equals. Because there is nothing that is considered as more sovereign than the states and because states are considered as equal, international organizations were created in order to systematize a balance of power in the global arena. This balance of power, which seeks to prevent ascendancy of a state or group of states, is maintained by taking into consideration the need for political equilibrium as a necessary consequent of sovereign equality of states. Adopted by the UN, the notion of balance of power prevents the possible outburst of aggression of any state. For example, the UN, through its Security Council, imposes sanctions to the North Korea in the latter's nuclear testing (which is categorized by the UN as an act of aggression). Punitive sanctions are imposed in order to pressure the North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs that are probable threats to peace in the global arena. Furthermore, UN, as an international institution, affirmed in its Charter that the practice of tolerance and the living together in peace must be promoted; and one way of doing this is to not use armed force unless there is a grave need to do so. This does not mean however, that war is not acknowledged in the UN Charter. States may resort to war provided that this is under self-defense; otherwise, war is prohibited.

International law provides a boundary between a prohibited and a permitted conduct in international relations. International law establishes the rights, duties and functions not only of states but also of individuals and international organizations. However, unlike the domestic or national law, international law may easily be disregarded by any state that wishes not to conform. This is for the reason that these international laws are not actually binding; there is no world government that is responsible for imposing sanctions for those that will not obey. International Court of Justice was created; but this only serves as an arbitrator between two states that are in conflict. Though it can make a ruling regarding a particular issue, it may not impose sanctions. Furthermore, its rulings may sometimes be ignored by states that do not want to obey. United States had once ignored the rule of law in its case against Nicaragua.

The recognition of sovereignty of states enables states to act on its own even if the action is not in line with the rule of law. International institutions or organizations that are under the assumption of sovereign equality attempt to solve this issue by its continuance in drafting of binding resolutions that are to be embraced by all states. Sovereign equality is not necessarily chaotic; its recognition actually allows states to participate in the making of treaties and conventions, allowing them to join international organizations, giving them the right to claim immunity in other states' courts for certain governmental acts.

International organizations, particularly the UN, and international laws are created in order to solve the pressing problems in the global realm. Some of these problems are of humanistic concerns. However, as previously stated, a state may easily ignore a ruling if it wishes to do so. It may commit human rights violations in an intrastate war. Though this is an internal concern of the state, the UN's respect for human rights makes the UN responsible of doing proper action regarding this issue. UN may opt to intervene but this is still under the consent of the state in question. As a corollary of sovereignty of the state, the state may violate human rights without the intervention of UN. It seems ironic now that the valuation of human rights, which is a reason for the creation of UN, is limited by a state's sovereignty, which is considered as a foundational principle of UN Charter. On a personal note, if we are to disregard all legalities and are to focus on the normative aspects of this issue, I think of it as warranted for the international organizations to intervene with the affairs of the state if and only if the rights of its people are threatened. This is one instance wherein the sovereignty of the state, if it is indeed sovereign, may be overridden by human rights concerns.