By: Amb. Godknows Igali
Prelude
As the year 2024 eclipses to an inevitable end in a matter of days, the global outlook for peace and security remains ominous and elusive. Earlier in September, 190 world leaders had come together in New York, re-enacting the proverbial gathering of the eagles to web a symphony out of their diverse voices. Yes, to give humanity a beacon of hope, but this 79th session of the United Nation General Assembly was itself the usual demagoguery and unhelpful in navigating the stormy waters of global peace. Since then, other prominent concerts such as BRICS and G20, amongst others, have also met in various locations around the world with the same routine and narrative.
Indeed, despite these and more efforts at building bridges of understanding, the global community remains fractured more than ever. Hence, the geopolitical landscape remains defined by escalation of conflicts, gaping polarizations, indescribable hostilities, and blockages of different sorts. As a matter of fact, violence of unimaginable proportions with dimming hopes for reconciliation and consensus building appear to be normal. So, wars rage unabated in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, Myanmar, Central African Republic, The Democratic Republic of Congo, the Sahel, etc. In so many other theatres, the human society is under an ominous recline towards the precipice.
The question is, where is the place of international law and the foundation of morality that comes with it. That is, if the ideals and tenets which ordinarily informed the coming together of world leaders at different times and indeed, the basis for the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which brought the present modern state system into being are still relevant.
True, in the realm of global politics, the concepts of international morality and international law play significant roles in shaping how states and actors ought to interact with one another. These precepts are deeply intertwined, driven by the shared aspirations of justice, equality, and peace. Sadly, the vision for world peace — a harmonious, conflict-free international order — remains unattainable, often seen as a distant utopia.
DOES MORALITY AND LAW MATTER IN GLOBAL POLITICS?
At the domestic level, “morality” in interpersonal relations and public probity is considered as greatly overarching. Agreed that what constitutes morality is debatable and could be much nuanced. But, simply put, morality denotes those principles, values, and rules that should guide human behaviour and separate between wrong and right. Indeed, between virtue and vice, as well as between just and unjust. These are fundamental norms that have all through history guided human relations. Despite the relativist extremisms that some hold to, morality, justice, fairness, and beneficence should shape how countries relate with themselves.
So, international morality refers to the collection of ethical principles, norms, and values that guide the behaviour of states and other international actors. It is concerned with emphasizing ideals like respect for human rights, human dignity, peace, fairness, justice, sovereignty, and non-aggression. Although not always codified into law, such norms reflect shared moral judgments on the global stage.
Similarly, at the domestic level, all manner of laws are in place to regulate human relations and activity. From the very dawn of human societies, men have always constructed some form of legal underpinning to define the manner in which various gatherings of people interacted with one another. Some zoologist have often determined, that even among certain social animals, some level of observance of rules of behaviour exists, harping on dominance. hierarchies, territorial boundaries, and between hordes, herds, swamps, and flocks as unorganized as they may seem.
International Law as defined by most of the leading global experts, such as Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotus and Jeremy Bentham, his British counterpart, are, in paraphrase those set of rules and principles that exists to guide the manner in which the nations of the world, the various multilateral institutions, and even individuals relate in international systems. The main destination of international law, therefore, is to avoid the general state of nature as defined by Thomas Hobbes as being in constant conflict, or survival of the fittest and all the brutishness which come with it. Therefore, the end destination of international law is to promote peace, order, mutual tolerance, and social justice among nations. In other words, what international law seeks to do is to promote an atmosphere for order and cooperation.
THE MUTUAL CONFLUENCE
Agreeably, these two concepts are like Siamese twins with a large intersection. Their synthesis and inter connectedness derive from the fact that both are directed towards a common end, that is, the promotion of peace, security, and collaboration at the global stage. More profoundly, they both aspire to bring about order, discipline, and structure, on how states and its citizens relate with one another, especially through mutual respect, dialogue, and understanding.
But it is important to note that there are also areas of noticeable divergences. International law is a formal system of norms established through treaties, conventions, and customary practices among states. It governs specific aspects of international relations, such as trade, warfare, human rights, and environmental protection. Conversely, international morality lays the labyrinth upon which some of these laws are constructed. It is broader, esoteric, and conceptual. Quite often, international law is essentially underpinned on moral constructs. A good case in point is human rights laws, also known as the Geneva Convention, which is essentially grounded in moral ideas about protecting human dignity and minimizing suffering during armed conflict.
Yet, international law is also shaped by political and economic considerations, which can lead to tensions between moral ideals and legal frameworks. This is evident in cases where international law is selectively applied or enforced, often to serve the interests of powerful states at the expense of weaker ones. We see this quite often within the United Nations system and how big countries like the US, China, and Russia pursue their national interest.
In other instances, states invoke moral principles to justify their actions on the international stage, even when those actions are contrary to established law. Quite often, some countries justify military intervention in other states by citing the moral need to prevent genocide, even if such intervention violates the principle of sovereignty under international law. This tension highlights the complexity of aligning moral considerations with legal obligations. This underlines the complex situation in the Middle East. Even the historic Allied Forces’ invasion of Germany (1944-1945) was premised on the need to stop atrocities by Nazi Germany. Same in 1991 when a US-led coalition invaded Kuwait to liberate it from Iraqi occupation, and same happened in Kosovo in 1999.
IS WORLD PEACE A DEJA VU?
The aspiration of all of humankind is to have in place global society free from war, conflict, hunger, and injustice. Indeed, this has long been a central goal and objective of international morality and law. However, the seeming state of fantasy on this is easily explainable by a number of factors.
Of foremost importance, the international system is marked by power imbalances. The global order is dominated by a few powerful states that wield disproportionate influence over virtually all manner of international affairs. Notable are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council who have the exclusive privilege of wielding a rather “unholy” veto power. These are Britain, France, China, Russia, and the United States of America. To this, it can be added to Canada, South Korea, Germany, Italy, and Japan, who from this league is what formed G-20. We also have other regional power blocs, such as India, Israel, North Korea, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, to a lesser extent Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya on the African continent.
These states often prioritize their own interests, undermining the principle of equality that is fundamental to both international morality and law. As a result, efforts to create a fair and just global system are frequently hindered by the realities of power dynamics.
Of equal importance is the inordinate pursuit of national interests, which often takes precedence over the global common good. According to Hans Morgenthau, by far the leading authority on the subject, such nation is often “driven by the pursuit of power and security” while his colleague, Robert Dahl adds the overriding place of “economic considerations”. So, all countries are primarily concerned with their own sovereignty, security, economic prosperity and hegemony, and political stability. This creates a clear divergence between the needs of individual countries and the collective needs of the international community. Obviously, some degree of cooperation and mutual accommodation is necessary for peace, but every nation will insist on acting in ways that safeguard their maximum interests, even if it conflicts with overall global stability. It is for this reason that new trade wars, tariffs, and narrow-minded, fiscal and monetary policies are on the rise.
In addition, we have come to appreciate the fact that cultural and ideological differences also play a major role in making world peace difficult to achieve. Although, there are irreducible minimums, different nations have varying interpretations of concepts like justice, governance, and human rights. Such differences in opinions and positions stem from their varied and disparate religious, cultural, and historical experiences. This diversity complicates the creation of a universally accepted moral or legal code. A good case in point is the fact that, Western notions of liberal democracy and individual rights may not totally align with the values and practices of countries in other parts of the world especially the Islamic world and Socialist states and even some African nations. For example, the whole emphasis on LGBTQ rights and unmitigated economic reforms are not shared by all. These and similar differences are, in many cases, responsible for the wide misunderstandings, tensions, and even conflicts between states.
Another factor is the reign of duplicity and Janus-faced manner in which states deal with one another. This is a major obstacle to world peace due to the selective enforcement of international law and standards of good behaviour. This is more so as powerful nations such as the United States, Russia, China, and NATO have the capacity to manipulate or ignore the international legal systems when it suits them. In a fundamental manner, this undermines the legitimacy of international law and erodes trust in the global order. When rules are applied inconsistently, smaller or weaker states, helplessly view international law as a tool of dominance, rather than as a system of fairness and justice. For example, the United States and Russia are not part of the International Criminal Court, yet they are the leading power blocs expected to enforce global ideals.
Not the least, the reign of a regime of economic competition among states further complicates the quest for world peace. Both great and small nations compete for resources, influence, and strategic advantages at almost all times. This often leads to tension and outbreak of conflict. Whether over territory, markets, or political alliances, this competition can escalate into wars and prolonged hostilities, making the dream of lasting peace seem distant.
Also, the effective reign of an order of global peace and security founded on common moral principles by law is often impaired by the role of world leaders with extremist right wing or leftist ideas and ideologies or religious expressions. Some of such leaders as newly elected US President Donald Trump, Russian leader Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un and several leaders in the Middle East do hold strong ideologies. Increasingly, religious fundamentalist and fanatical ideas are also inflaming conflicts unending. As a matter of fact, in extreme cases, they could be ultra-functionalist, anarchists, and even supremacist. Accordingly, their political and social ideals expressed in moral absolutism or dogmatic stands on issues could impede all efforts directed at arriving at mainstream, open-minded, and moderate views. So such leaders continue to spew their exclusivist thoughts to form volcanoes of religious and political extremism which today dot the world, and leading to such devious acts as kidnapping, piracy, banditry, terrorism, and wars of different dimensions.
Another critical factor that is a major hindrance to world peace and entrenchment of international law is the preponderant influence of the global military industrial complex. On a daily basis, the main powers of the world and even some emerging powers are manufacturing more deadly weapons, which must be put to use. The year 2024 had its own fair share of such new “Super weapons” unleashed into the global market space”. These include hypersonic to glide weapons and a full range of laser-guided systems. Even the Indians introduced a new variant of 550 ASMI pistols, which are designed for close quarter combat operations. At the level of aircraft, the Chinese debuted the J-55A stealth jet fighter which is likely to change fundamentally, warfare in the skies. Similarly, the US space force is said to be developing new weapons, which they call “directed energy weapons “. In the year that is about ending, the military industry complex net worth for a few of the biggest spenders according to leading source ‘The World’ include:
United States ($600.4 billion)
China ($112.2 billion)
Russia ($68.2 billion)
Saudi Arabia ($69.2 billion)
United Kingdom ($52.4 billion)
France ($52.4 billion).
Even for medium range powers such as India, Brazil, South Korea, and Iran, military budgets reached $36.7 billion, $34.7 billion, $31.8 billion, and $17.7 billion, respectively.
A HOPE FOR FORWARD MARCH
As bleak as the situation appears, all hope is lost. As was once said by former American President Franklin Roosevelt “when you come to the end of your road, tie a knot and hang it up”. Indeed, hope is that burning light that brings back determination and the courage to move on. Hence, human society has continued to pursue the reign of global morality, international law, and world peace without giving up. Some things have to be done.
To the extent that the agencies of the United Nations and other international bodies have achieved great results in decolonization, disarmament, fight for human rights and the reign of democracy, such ideals should continue to be pursued. It may also be remiss to de-escalate the pursuit of political objectives. However, more focus on international cooperation, economic development, educational and cultural exchanges, the environment, and climate change becomes paramount as a driver towards peace.
The other very critical factor is that of strengthening the global framework for peace and collaboration amongst peoples and nations. Primarily, there is a need to strengthen organs of the United Nations. Despite the overbearing influence of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the clamour for making that body more representative should be reinforced. The veto power, which has been used 293 times in total, blocking all efforts directed at global peace and security, has obviously become anachronistic. A new system in which proportionality to accommodate the interest of all, should be adopted.
There is a greater need to strengthen the frameworks for “preventive diplomacy” as different from “reactive diplomacy.” Conflicts must be nipped in the bud. Around the world, there is a need for a new concert on identifying early warning systems and triggers of conflicts. Locations specific templates for early intervention to forestall potential conflagration must be adopted worldwide.
In addition to these, is the need to strengthen regional bodies such as the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Organisation of American States (OAS) and not excluding the sub-regional bodies such as ECOWAS. Besides promoting regional security arrangements, such bodies can cooperate in a more robust manner amongst themselves to promote peace and tolerance, people to people diplomacy, and help to douse the enablers of conflict.
Finally, hunger and abuse of human rights need to be fought to the barest minimum. Of greater importance is the need to pay attention to the ravaging impact of diseases, climate change, and environmental degradation.
Humanity has always shown a tendency for resilience and overcoming the challenges of existence, with enormous grit and determination. Human society has always shown its strength to rebound beyond present circumstances. With the present reign of insecurity and despair, hope and peace may seem elusive. However, humanity can definitely weather the storms and come back stronger if the efforts at peace building, peace-making, and peace enforcement are sustained and redoubled.
Dr. Igali, a diplomat, is the First Vice President, Academy of International Affairs
