Something
that stood out to me this week was the idea of “illegal but legitimate”, as
mentioned in the Bellamy article. The intervention in Kosovo was deemed illegal
by the United Nations in its procedure, but considered legitimate due to the
pressing nature of the situation. In my opinion, this notion contradicts the
whole idea of the United Nations. To me the UN is an establishment of laws and
norms that don’t really have much foundation other than countries agreeing to
follow them. In this I mean that there is no supreme power that is able to
enforce these laws- it’s more an amalgamation of states checking and balancing
each other in the hope of establishing content.
What I
found astonishing was the idea that the UN could declare an action just, even
if it violated the rules by which the whole system builds itself on. I’m not
disagreeing with the need to intervene in a humanitarian crisis, but it seems
as if this undermines the legitimacy of the entire operation. If the UN is able
to say ‘well that didn’t follow the rules but it was okay’, then how can one
take any of the rules seriously? This just reinforces the idea that the UN is a
reflection of power structures that operates in order to maintain the status
quo.
I would be
interested to hear what people think. Does this ability to let something
illegal slide undermine the legitimacy of the wholes structure? Or was the need
to intervene so paramount that the structure needs to be brushed aside?
Intervention is often a last resort and it can help save lives. The case of Syria shows that thousands of people are fighting for their freedom and they are paying with their lives. The UN is at an impasse on intervening; as Russia and China vote for non intervention. This is the point, I wish they would have pulled the legitimacy clause and one country would have made the unilateral decision to intervene. But due to their lack of national interest in the state, they chose not to interfere. I may be an idealist in believing that every life is worth saving when it can. I would have hoped the United States would have looked at the situation of the people, realize that they are fighting for democracy and equality, the qualities the U.S embodies or presumes to do and to have assisted them. I find the thought of people being slaughtered revolting and I wish that the UN would have intervened despite the cost. When there is a will there is a way, although the intervention would have meant the Syrians forsaking their economic and political interest, lives that would have been lost would be saved and things can be changed for the better.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point but it appears to be about finding ways to actually undertake just actions despite Russia and China's presence on the security council. That said, you make a good point.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that we are taking 'just' actions despite Russia and China's presence on the security council really just points to the idea that the UN is a reflection of power balance. Their presence is more to appease those nations than offer a balanced reflection of the global system. To say that we are inhibited by those states affirms that the UN is built on Western ideals.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main issues with the UN is that it is often used to symbolize the power balance in the world. The content which is at hand in the decision making is often overlooked and instead what is of more concern is who will gain power through this decision. I found your first paragraph interesting because what you described is in a general sense much like any government. The only reason it works is because people agree to follow. Whether or not they are satisfied doesn't matter if they continue to benefit from it. Then i drew a connection from the UN power struggles to the struggles in the U.S.'s Legislative branch. Often times the decision comes down to which party will gain power from the decision. Just something that I thought was an interesting connection.
ReplyDeleteI like the connection that you make between the UN and the United States Legislative branch. It is unfortunately true that many times decisions are made based on the self interest of each country. This however reflects the philosophy that we talked about in the beginning of this class, particularly Machiavelli's belief that every decision should be made to further a state's interest and self-preservation. This idea has been proven time and time again throughout history and I believe it will in the future. It's interesting how this council is working only because people agree to follow the norms and laws set by it, and it will be interesting to see what happens when countries start to stray away from agreeing to these laws and norms when they are no longer content with the results of the council.
DeleteYes, the problem becomes convincing the UNSC (or congress) that their interests like in areas that we see as moral and ethical. Interests are not a pre-existing given, they can change and be molded.
Delete