How is international law enforced? Are countries equally consenting to its execution through the cooperation of several worldly organizations? What qualities of International law allow the enforceability of provisions on all respected governments? Can International judicial systems try any government at any time for breaking the law? How are procedures actually complying in contrast to expectations? Is it not that physical conflicts or civil struggles where foreign players are involved strictly disallowed and illegal? How many legal loopholes or partisan statutes exist? Who is the primary international player?
International law is the modern method of extending a country’s political reach to others
International law has always been a dilemma to the everyday individual. The treaties of the modern world, signed mostly in the last century by opposing and neighboring countries, were made to ensure a unified outlook at the world, often with a specific purpose benefiting a leading body more than the others. According to international law professors from developed countries, treaties of the 20th century were outlined to ensure a certain level of civility after series of inhumane and gruesome warfares in the name of power maintenance or expansion that was a slippery slope to world destruction. From that, they began transforming and adapting to global integration for security and sustainability. “NATO was a very specific treaty coming at a strategically planned timing. It is almost evident that it was designed as a multi-faction military goal to defend a forced government against landowners should conflicts stir.” This specific type of law in its original form imposes certain characteristics and ways of governing on governments in order to coexist “peacefully” with each other and presumes a certain standard to treat the people where Human Rights is a must.
These are the usual prerequisites to be called a country of the first world. Government corruption and human rights offenses are first-degree breaches to this type of law, in addition to domestic criminal laws. Strangely, trying countries internationally is as vague as most 20th century treaties. Several tyrants who were proven guilty by intelligence centers around the world in recent years were able to avoid any political backlash, usually through “generous donations and arms acquisition from the leading nation,” as stated by intelligence officers. According to a survey on governments’ positioning, most people portray the existence of corruption yet not quite tackled or legally brought to justice. “It would be difficult to bring justice domestically given the manipulation and control of these groups; however, international law should be a major player in stopping this kind of immorality that derogates civilization and discredits treaties.” Many individuals question the presence of international judicial organizations that should prevent the big player from taking over or monopolizing livelihoods. In developing and emerging countries, this aspect is largely controversial where human instincts and foreign penetrations are leading the modern course of order.
Unrest of foreign lands is the goal of certain ambitious states for political and economic benefits
When European and specific middle eastern countries cooperate by arms in a state to publicly organize political turmoil through a bloody coup d’état, without the consent of international bodies or organizations, this makes people question the power wielded by those false-peace claimants, given that innocent lives are being withered as “collateral.” A similar history occurred in two neighboring countries to Libya, where army generals uprose and took over the political sphere, as explained in “The Tragic Democracy in the Arab World,” dragging the countries into worsening states economically and socially by supplying the demands of foreign supporters of the revolution. Libya latterly turned into a tragic state where foreign developed countries are pulling the ropes against an internationally acknowledged government by supporting a Libyan-American field marshal of Libyan forces, also known as a party warlord, with a mercenary mindset and dictator-like history who publicly announces his journey into Gaddafi’s footsteps. As explained in “The Hidden Democracy of Governments,” if fiercely divided parties of the same state, like the ones in Libya, were not backed by foreign entities, democracy, and local politics would prevail in a more peaceful manner where people’s voices would be heard by means of local democracy, given that power differences are not extensive between parties or groups. However, fruitful economic agendas stemming from tragedy-based objectives are frequently available on unrested foreign soils, hence the ongoing interference and penetration of foreign parties. The forced integration of policies customarily under the oversee of powerful nations arising from treaties’ public missions should establish a partisan-free workforce that rights the wrongs of partial decision-making on account of agreed accords.
Nevertheless, coexisting in today’s political environment, where everything needs to either be fully globalized or severely challenged, is a near-impossible task for many nations to grow or progress. As explained in “Globalization may not be as healthy. Autarky may not be as bad,” globalization was the main driver of COVID wildfire, which also is connected to the political landscape of the world today where governments from leading countries are almost always partial to their desires in organizations that are meant to bring some equality and freedom of democracy to unequally powerful nations without socio-political pressures. Whereas maintaining a certain level of self-sufficiency and autarky can be more healthy and optimized in today’s times, provided that the world is increasingly integrating yet more unsettled.
The actuality of international law prevails on specific groups over others
Countries today need to exercise more patience than power when it comes to international disputes. When an “approved politics” country that is part of NATO is encroaching on another land or does not perform its obligations, the usual response by the organizations is a diligent recommendation to correct the course of action. However, when matters come to an “unapproved-politics” country of NATO, or other third-party countries, it is usually sanctioned at differing levels. Yet, not always effective. Iran, the country that was labeled as “political terrorism” internally and externally, is still able to produce its structure for nuclear warheads and procure uranium through internationally unauthorized mining activities where those sanctions only affected economic conditions and trade relationships with developed countries, causing their business dealings to shift via more unconventional parties. The social outcry against the presumed courses of action that International law is supposed to fix created a significant increase in grey areas displayed from the accords that a substantial portion of countries are following. According to researchers from developing countries, international law is becoming more obsolete to modern times methods as industries and politics are growing, but the law is not, where the environment is rigorously developing and bluntly aggravating the forms of illegal political measures, calling the need for swift reformation on account of events from recent times. A reformed and genuinely peace-driven structure of international law would prevent public orders of first-degree murder, political support of mercenary groups, social interference, penetration to a government order, support of unqualified leadership, and totalitarianism.
Military power is the leading factor for international leadership
As explained in “The Judicial System’s Reality Check and Its Reformation 126.96.36.199,” courtrooms need to adjust and fix the ongoing capitalism based structure where more expensive attorneys are a reason for success even if illegal actions were committed. This is also a reason for civil troubles, given that it provokes judicial inequality and grows the attention to wealth distribution issues. A similar case for international law, where military power is a leading factor for authority and success in boards and courtrooms of organizations, succeeded by economic powers and support. This is also portrayed where few countries have a higher weight of vote and veto over others, putting quality over equality and quantity. The differentiation of order between countries on organizations’ boards that seek to promote judicial decision making for third party governments is usually given to the desires of one powerful nation that often decides the route of action, the USA. In basic terms, its military powers are dispersed largely around the world in an effort to “defending allies, safeguarding alliances and promoting peace,” where covert operations are conducted continuously. Increased integration and means for alliance under the flag of globalization is strengthening the mission of power distribution that the USA is continually achieving.
Invading a country under false claims, nuking a country demolishing numerous generations, and intervening in every political dispute occurring, and still creating “peace” talks and treaties for equality and letting bygones be bygones, where a treaty is the usual aftermath of American incursion. The plausible strategic intelligence contained by this country is stemming from in-depth research and understanding of every culture, belief, religion, value, language, history, and tradition of peoples out there. The existence of American officers around the world is mostly for research and self-development of strategies, especially in the last century, in order to facilitate modern world interference and control of political structures. The display of leadership in politics, justice, military power, technology, and civilization causes world states to follow or associate in footsteps economically, socially, and politically. Most administrations around the world have American counsel in the form of embassies and associations. This country never ceases to get in front of any socio-political development occurring in the world today. The amusing thing is, it rarely fails. Its power especially wields a high impact on fellow NATO countries’ leadership. According to official representatives from developed countries, “they [USA] are available everywhere as a show of power, so fellow countries do not cross their demands. Trump is a perfect example of furthering its strategic interests. He revoked thousands of troops from Europe because of lower effort and contribution to the alliance. Besides the demeaning manners of Trump in his conduct with the chancellor of Germany, this is both economically and politically costly on his side.”
Strengthening the position for re-election is often through connecting with foreign unrested or undemocratic states
Leaders nowadays are majorly focused on maintaining their position of power, where the prime focus is on being re-elected. According to former in-house officers in the USA, presidents’ primary mission during the presidency is landing more approvals and maintaining popularity among supporters, where foreign applications go very long since the country is built on immigrants from all around the world. Donald Trump creating a false “peace plan” under the name of Abraham, the father of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism to connect the principles of a self-imposed government with the principles of rightful landowners, Netanyahu exercising this peace plan “first of its kind” in a three-way agreement with the USA and despots from the Middle East opening their arms to adhering opposing values in a measure for presumed peace and economic improvement, and Emmanuel Macron seeking to establish the political basis and mediating governmental transitions in Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, and Cyprus in order to gain more prevalence. According to analysts, these kinds of developments are usually for self-image overseas and political objectives under the benefaction of specific parties. Of course, people are the first losers to such sort of bias and agendas where self-order is farfetched.
In the name of international peace, countries in the Middle East believed in their destructive politics by focusing on placement and rise to more power, with dull associations and ignorant accords, neglecting their principles and cultural identity. As explained in “Principles and Politics,” diplomacy tends to dismay principles where modern politics requires the adaptation to a particular type of character that is usually appropriated to developed countries, often known as courteous hypocrisy by democracy, or “Democrisy.” According to a survey on approval ratings in the middle east, people frequently disapprove of their leaders’ choices that may directly contradict their integrity, but cannot resist it given the ruling party’s authority as “judges, juries, and executioners.” Recently, several events took place where policies began to be more foreign-friendly than local, as stated by someone, “I don’t feel at home. Foreign applications are taking over day by day. This country is not what my grandparents grew up in. Even if it’s fairly new, its principles displayed by the first ruler should always be applied.” As the saying goes, politics is the field of dynamic values and beliefs. In order for a politician to win in modern times, they must continuously adapt and enact traits that may not be very cultural or integrity friendly.
Laws are created by man and are never, and will never, be perfect.