Extent to Which the UN Can Shape Order and Ensure Justice in World Politics

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Tensions between justice and order
The UN as an agent for normative integration
Limitations of the UN
Internalisation of international norms advocated by the UN
Conclusion
References

Introduction

An international body like the United Nations has an enormous task with regard to shaping order and justice in world politics. It must balance problems emanating from the actual conceptions of justice and order; it must deal with the needs of these stakeholders and must also look for ways of overcoming its limitations and inefficiencies.

Tensions between justice and order

One significant problem that the United Nations must contend with is the divergence of order and justice in world politics. In certain ways, justice appears to compromise international order. This implies that stakeholders need to make a decision on which of the two concepts should be given precedence over the other (Hoffman, 1986, 185).

According to conservative international relations players, minimum order is the only true value that can be achieved and should therefore come before concerns about justice. On the other hand, revolutionary stakeholders in oppressed parts of the world like the Middle East assert that once justice is instated then disorder may come in temporarily but this will be followed by establishment of a new order (Watson & Headley, 1984, 58).

Progressivists on the other hand hold that justice need not be viewed as a threat to change because it is self defeating to instate change if it will lead to violence. Indeed, they advocate for institution of change in the justice realm only if it will be a result of consensus (Hedley, 2008, par 5).

It can be argued that when consensus exists between all the players in an unjust matter, justice may be achieved without compromising on order as the case was with the independence of colonised states around the world (Headley, 1976, 132)). Britain as well as the colonised states both agreed to self governance; justice and order were instated. On the other hand sometimes the international arena may have a consensus on a certain form of injustice even when the internal players do not agree.

When this occurs, justice may be instated albeit with some minimal disorder which can then be reversed with time (Wheeler & Dunne, 1996, 94). Such a scenario occurred in South Africa when apartheid officially came to an end. The problem for international bodies such as the United Nations occurs when the international arena lacks consensus on a certain issue of justice (Heldley, 2008, par 14). This causes a re-analysis of issues that had previously been written off as closed.

It paralyses these international bodies because their attempts at instating justice may lead to adverse objections and hence disorder. For instance, in 1961, India opted to engage in military action against Portugal after asserting that Portugal had historically been aggressive towards it and it needed to liberate itself. An international body like the UN would be in a dilemma in such a case because revolutionaries would support India’s actions by claiming that just war is a precursor for liberation.

On the other hand, conservatives would argue that India disrupted order in Portugal and this violated their concern for minimum order. In this regard, an international body such as the UN must address the conflicts of justice and order before deciding on the side that it will be taking. In this regard, some analysts have asserted that a choice must be made on what concept will take precedence over the other but because of a lack of consensus then no general prescriptions can be made (Hedley, 2008, par 39).

In fact, the best bet would be to look at the context of a particular case and then weigh the options. The difficulty of making those decisions therefore demonstrates that an international body such as the UN may not have the freedom to act as it pleases (Mazrui, 1996, 59). It has a very difficult role to deal with as it progresses with time.

The UN as an agent for normative integration

Hedley (1977, 77) believes that realist thought on international politics tends to be a little misleading because its overemphasis on security concerns dissuades it from acknowledging the peace inherent in international politics. Furthermore, he argues that international politics can be seen as a system of state actors who are governed by international values (Headley, 1984, 5).

In contrast to the view propelled by realists who assert that states will only act in their own interests, Headley (1977, 85) affirms that states can and do act against their own state interests in order to propel international norms concerning justice. This is often achieved through concepts found in international law. Such principles exist thanks to international actors such as the United Nations who contributed towards the creation and acceptance of common rules in the international role.

There is no doubt that these laws eventually diminish the state of anarchy or disorder in the international system and thus shows why some nations are doing relatively well compared to their pasts. In the realist school of thought, order is understood as a depiction of the dominant interests among predominant powers within the international arena (Waltz, 1979, 69). However, for Hedley (1977, 90) order is therefore a universal value.

It is necessary for state actors to uphold these values because it preserves their interests and that of other states in the world. When a conflict is resolved between two nations, it is not just their interests that will be propagated but that of other nations of the world because all nations are depend on one another (Vincent, 1988, 204). Given the fact that prevalence of universal values is critical in neutralisation of anarchy, the question begs as to who is responsible for these universal values.

The UN can shape the prevalence of order in global politics through promotion, propagation and creation of these values. In this regard, the United Nations plays an important role of acting as an agent for normative integration; universal norms start with this body (Carr, 1983). Therefore when it comes to issues of order, the UN’s role is to be an agent of unification of values (Buergenthal, 1997, 715).

Despite seeming conflicts between the concepts of order and justice, it appears as though the United Nations plays an important role in reconciling these factors. For instance, the Rwandan genocide of 1996 necessitated intervention by international society and this was supported by the UN. The body argued that the chaos in that nation was a threat to humanity and would disrupt international security or order.

On the other hand, the body also asserted that these actions contravened international understanding of justice and were therefore not acceptable. In other words, the UN found a way of uniting interests revolving around order and justice in world politics. This was an exhibition of its ability to be an agent of normative integration. Another illustration of such a role occurred when the United States wanted to instate a global war against terror.

Despite the US’ enormous strength, it first sought approval from the United Nations. It told the body that Iraqi invasion was a just war and that this went hand in hand with international law inherent in the UN. Here, concerns over order in the international arena were being addressed.

On the other hand, the war was also designed to enact a global war on terror. In this regard, it can be seen that the concept of justice was also engrained in the practise because terrorism is seen as an unjust practise that infringes on other people’s human rights.

One can therefore assert that there is a small level of convergence between the concerns over justice as well as the need to preserve order in international politics thanks to the existence and the work carried out by the UN. Nonetheless, one cannot ignore the fact that there still several unanswered questions about the importance of justice in the UN’s quests.

Klotz (1995, 460) explains that the United Nations has been able to make significant progress in terms of engraining international norms amongst state entities. At the time when apartheid was rampant in South Africa i.e. during the 1980s, the world through various state actors and international bodies like the UN responded to this issue through economic, military and cultural sanctions against South Africa.

This implies that there was indeed a huge consensus on a human rights issue hence a justice issue (McDougal, 1960, 35). The world agreed that racial inequality as witnessed through apartheid was not acceptable. This demonstrated that the world had a shared understanding of what normal behaviour was or what it was not supposed to be through the goings on in South Africa. To this end, it can be argued that the international field had been affected by universal norms.

This implies that material concerns were no longer taking precedence as realists would advocate. It is no wonder one particular state i.e. the US was a follower rather than a leader in instating these acts. Despites it’s relatively powerfully status, the United States was actually complying with what other countries of the world were doing. This can be seen by the fact that it had an interest in the economic policies of South Africa but chose not to pursue those interests for the sake of justice.

Limitations of the UN

The UN’s powers are severely limited by the very nature of the international arena. Klotz (1996, 185) argues that sanctions are an important method of reinforcing order and justice although this method can be severely limiting. Sanctions much like other non military policies used by the UN are often characterised by specific state interests. The UN may encourage rich nations to sanction a particular country in order to propagate a certain human right concern. However, the rich nation may have specific trading ties with the targeted country and may therefore hesitate to start sanctioning them.

In fact, some countries have out rightly defied directions given by the United Nations on imposing sanctions because of the economic interests that they may get from such countries. In fact, the sanctions may only succeed once state interests converge with international norms. These gaps in the process of reinforcement may therefore impede the ability of the UN to truly shape justice and order in world politics.

Koskenniemi (1995, 330) claims that the United Nations has sometimes overstepped its boundaries and this has sparked a lot of criticism from international lawyers, diplomats and the like. One such case occurred when the UN wanted to impose peace arrangements on Iraq in the nineteen nineties.

Furthermore, the UN also endorsed the sending back of two Libyans when the International court of justice held a different view. These matters and many more have brought into question the UN’s ability to make real change with regard to justice and order without going beyond its mandate. These controversies therefore slow down their endeavours

Internalisation of international norms advocated by the UN

The United Nations’ most relevant documentation is the international declaration of human rights that was put into effect in 1948. With this declaration, it was assumed that the international arena would be greatly characterised by improvements in justice and order. However, one thing such optimistic individuals had not covered was the process of internationalisation of the declaration or the values and norms inherent in them.

Principled ideas propagated by international bodies like the United Nations must be socialised by the concerned parties in order to turn them into norms which can then alter their behaviour. In this regard, one should note that there is a distinct difference between an idea held by a specific entity like the UN and a norm which is a collective expectation by a number of entities.

Furthermore, member states would still need to convert those norms into tangible actions as well. This may be very complicated for some countries or may take longer than is necessary. In this regard, the UN’s ability to truly shape order and justice becomes diminished because other obstacles have come in the way (Rise and Sikkink, 1999, 5).

There can be several ways that the process of internalising international ideas can be hampered. For instance, countries that were engaging in an act that the United Nations considered unjust may have a particularly hard time changing the practical actions of its citizens even after accepting the idea that the act was wrong (Risse, 1999, 54).

For example, the UN asserts that extra judicial killings are unacceptable. Some militaries around the world have been engaging in these acts and may not consider them wrong. However, if their states decide to comply with UN principles, in other words if they have accepted the UN ideas as norms, it then becomes difficult to make sure that all the members of the military stop acting in such a manner.

The problem for the UN is that states are not just homogenous entities. They are composed of individuals who each have their own interests. Eventually, extra judicial killings may continue even when such nations have already accepted UN principles (Rise and Sikkink, 1999, 18).

The ability of the norms to influence behaviour is also another issue that may block the UN’s success in dealing with problems of justice and order. In other words, a principle needs to be personal and strong enough to induce some positive action from the perpetrators of those actions. Furthermore, entities must also have the will power to do what is right even when that has not been happening in the past.

This may not always occur amongst specific individuals and it therefore hamper’s the UN achievements in world politics. In such circumstances, these nations must realise that the actions are still going on and then impose punishments to counter them. Sometimes it may take longer to reinforce sanctions or punishments designed to hamper contraventions to UN principles. Accountability would have easily solved such a matter (Baurnett, 19997, 527).

Issues of continuity also need to be addressed when looking at the internationalisation process. Sanctions are largely understood as one method for reinforcing justice and order internationally and the UN adversely contributes to this concept by supporting nations that do. In certain circumstances, a country may be sanctioned from receiving economic aid or otherwise from economically able countries.

After some time, such a nation may instate the necessary reforms propagated by the UN or other international bodies. However, one may find that aid is still not forthcoming from the powerful nations because these countries may already possess a bias towards former sanctioned states.

The biases comes in the way of true reform because aid dependent nations will not enjoy any positive change in their lives even after making sure that they have complied with international regulations (Coate et al, 2007, 118),. Those nations whose internalisation process was tied to their image and perceptions in the outside world instead of actual principles may be persuaded to resort to their past actions since changes do not yield results. These complexities all come in the way of greater success for UN backed concerns of justice and order.

Conclusion

The United Nations has played a part in the shaping of order and justice in world politics by being an agent of normative integration. This can be witnessed through several achievements such as the antiapartheid movement. On the other hand, its ability to influence these factors is affected by the internalisation process of international ideas, the complexity of world politics, specific interests of sovereign nations and the tensions between order and justice.

References

Hedley, B. (2008). Order vs Justice in International Society in Coral Bell and Meredith Thatcher (eds.), Remembering Hedle, ANU E Press, 2008. Retrieved from https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/series/sdsc/remembering-hedley#d0e2709.

Risse, T. and Sikkink, K. (1999). The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Politics in Thomas Risse and Stephen C. Ropp (eds.), 1999 The Power of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klotz, A. (1995).Norms reconstituting interests: global racial equality and U.S. sanctions against South Africa, International Organization, 49( 3), 451-478.

Hedley, B. (1977). The Anarchical Society (Chapter 4: Order versus Justice in World Politics). Columbia: Columbia university press.

Klotz, A. (1996). Norms and sanctions: lessons from the socialization of South Africa, Review of International Studies, 22 (2), 173-190.

Hedley, B. (1984). The Concept of Justice in International Relations in Justice in International Relations: Hagey Lectures, 1983-84, Waterloo, Ont: University of Waterloo, pp. 1-18.

Vincent, R. (1988). Hedley Bull and order in international politics, Millennium, 17 (2), 195-213.

Buergenthal, T. (1997). The normative and institutional evolution of international human rights, Human Rights Quarterly, 19(4) 703-723.

Risse, T. (1999). International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behaviour in the Human Rights Area. Politics & Society, 27, 529-559.

Barnett, M. (1997). Bringing in the New world order: liberalism, legitimacy and the UN. Journal of world politics, 49, 526-51.

Koshenniemi, M. (1995). Order, justice and the UN; dialectical view. EJIL, 6, 325-348.

Coate, R. Forsythe, D. & Weiss, T. (2007). The United Nations and changing world politics. London: Westview press.

Mazrui, A. (1966). Towards a pax-Africana. A study of ideology and ambition. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

McDougal, M. (1960). Studies in world public order. New Haven: Yale press.

Headley, B. (1976). Martin wright and the theory of international relations. International studies journal, 19(3), 269-283.

Watson, A. & Headley, B. (1984). The revolt against the west. Oxford: OUP.

Wheeler, N.& Dunne, T. (1996). Hedley Bull’s pluralism of the intellect & Solidarism of the will. Journal of international affairs, 72(1), 94.

Hoffman, S. (1986). Headley Bull and his contribution to international relations. Journal of international affairs, 62(2), 185.

Carr, E. (1983). An introduction to the study of international relations. London: Mcmillan.

Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

Click Here To Order Now!