An incomparable illustration of a situation where international intervention was needed, but did not come in full force, is the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Samantha Power, a journalist and a writer, studied the disastrous decisions by the United Nations, its bureaucracy, and the United States in particular. According to Power, these actors are to blame for the consequences of nonintervention in Rwanda3.

When a state’s behavior is not regulated in any way, there is a possibility of development and proliferation of technologies, whose destructive power, when built, neither the 17th century’s, nor the 21st century’s laws have the capability to stop. The greatest examples of these technologies are nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction. In order to prevent the possible unwanted consequences of letting the nuclear buildup go uncontrolled, the Non-Proliferation Treaty was organized. The NPT establishes that in order to contribute to the battle against weapons of mass destruction, nuclear technology trade and nuclear technology development are forbidden. The participating nations have to give up some of their sovereignty for the sake of international security.

An outstanding example of the nuclear dilemma from the current international affairs is the Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S., along with its allies, pressure Iran to close up the program. Iran, on the other hand, declares to be working on peaceful goals, therefore claiming its right of self-determination. The system of sovereignty, in this case, aids Iran’s behavior which threatens international peace. James Phillips, a passionate critic of Iran’s nuclear development, says in one of his statements that, “as potentially costly and risky as a preventive was against Iran would be, allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would result in far heavier potential costs and risks.”4Phillips’ statement supports the notion that once a state starts claiming its right to choose whether the development of weapons of massive destruction goes on inside the state, international security is placed in danger.

In addition to the questions of security and economics, many critics of the Westphalian system bring up the goals of humanitarian progress. The majority of values of humanitarianism were laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Criminal Court was established on its premise. When members of the international community take actions that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ICC has the privilege to prosecute the violators even in case if the violator is not a member in the ICC. This procedure majorly interferes with the ideals of Westphalian society. In his writing, Briony MacPhee makes a strong line of support for the ICC, by attacking the common critiques to the organization. Briony MacPhee mentions, “much of the humanitarian work sponsored by the U.S. abroad may no longer be necessary, allowing Americans to continue to advance their humanitarian ideals while avoiding the deaths of American soldiers and rerouting the millions spent on humanitarian aid,”5 as one of his strong messages to the U.S. The U.S. vastly supports human rights values, but refuses to join the ICC because of the ideals of sovereignty.

As a result of the continuous disputes on the principles of the Westphalian system of state sovereignty, there developed numerous alternatives to this model of international relations. Stephen D. Krasner, a professor at Stanford University, in his Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States6 article found that sovereignty does not accomplish its purpose in many parts of the world. Krasner’s version of the new international system should include de facto trusteeships and shared sovereignty, where “national rulers would use their international legal sovereignty to legitimate institutions within their states in which authority was shared between internal and external actors”6 (p. 185.)  Anne-Marie Slaughter’s The Real New World Order brings up the idea of transgovernmental networks, which, in the near future are going to be smoothing out the frontiers, thus getting rid of the principles of sovereignty.7

The most important aspect of keeping our world safe is considering all actors on the stage before making decisions about international politics. Whether the written laws say one thing or another, often times the world brings in new issues that, in order to be dealt with, need to either break the old rules, or to create new ones. The Westphalian system has some imperfections which stood out more as years passed, but that only proves the fact that it is the most excellent system of international relations that was created so far.

 

References:

  1. Fareed Zakaria, “Culture is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 1994, pp 109-126.
  2. Helen V. Milner, “Globalization, Development and International Institutions: Normative and Positive Perspectives,” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 3, no.4 (Dec. 2005).
  3. Samantha Power, “Bystanders to Genocide,” Atlantic, Sept. 2001.
  4. James Phillips, from “U.S. Policy and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge,” Testimony during Hearings on “Iran’s Political/Nuclear Ambitions and U.S. Policy Options,” before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (May 18, 2006)
  5. Briony MacPhee, from the “International Criminal Court: A Case for Conservatives,” The American Non- Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court (August 30, 2005)
  6. Stephen D. Krasner, “Sharing Sovereignty,” International Security 29:2 (Fall 2004).
  7. Anne-Marie Slaughter, “The Real New World Order,” Foreign Affairs (Sept. /Oct. 1997).