//
you're reading...
Laws of War

Help Required, Please (Add Your Thoughts To This Legal Framework List): ‘On The Laws to Undermine/Regulate The Use Of Force In The International & National Relations’


Hi Everyone,

I am tasked with perhaps one of my biggest role and responsibility to date, in finding ways to reduce, nay, to undermine the use of military, or any other ‘concept’ that might be used as a future loop-hole, force, in the International and national affairs. The Date set for my presentation is on the 02.09.11.

Thank You All In Advance.

Outlined below are the few of my own thoughts, please do not hesitate to challenge or to expand as you might see fit.

The New International Legal Framework Against The Use of Force

1. A complete ban on all private arms industries, laboratories, businesses, fronts, and also to all private security contracting firms.

1.a. The definition of arms can be anything from those that can maim, injure, paralysis, inactivate or kill any human being or animals.

2. A set-up of an highly regulated institution, that centralised all responsibilities of overseeing the regulation and the respect of these new legal requirements.

3. An highly regulated system of defining and overseeing the state-owned and run arms industries.

3.a. This should define what types of arms can be made, and only for defensive nature, and with more lesser killing power, and what ‘military products’ all states require for their defensive policies; this needs to be standardised, for all, small states and big.

3.b. Their should be an outright ban on Nuclear Arms and Weaponry, and also any natural resources that might be black-marketed for such use , the latter can be a ban or regulated strictly and closely.

3.c. No weapons of mass destruction of any sort can be allowed to be manufactured, even for ‘civilian use’, but new alternatives needs to be researched and developed instead, through funding encouragement etc.

3.d. Any future development in the ‘products’, either by ‘definition’ or ‘physical attributes’, should never be allowed to undermine the laws, as any loop-holes should be dealt with as they arise, and even when not in the precepts of laws, they should be declared banned, and recorded.

4. The raising and recruiting of civilians for military life should only be allowed as ‘voluntary services’, and not paid, or a profession of its own. The payment will only be made under actual fighting, not to maintain and create Standing Armies.

5. No International Institutions or Organisations would be prescribed with powers to declare wars of any kind, be it Humanitarian or whatever linguistics-manipulation used. Only the newly created International Institute Against Armed Violence will be provided with such prerogative powers.

5.a. These powers will be well-defined and set-out to avoid any manipulation or corruption from within or without.

5.b. Only times used will be to sanction an aggressor who have chosen to break these new laws of war.

5.c. During such times, the organisation will raise and create an international force agreed upon unanimously through popular vote by the citizens of the world not politicians or any representatives to punish such an aggressor.

5.d. The punishment will be based on reparation fines, sanctions, embargoes and isolationism for three-decades for the accused parties, and disarmed within such a period.

6. Private interests and media, should be regulated to keep away from bias reporting or advocating for any involvement. If wars do happen, the media should be banned on conducting live-feeding and shows, but rather should be allowed to participate and witness the responsible use of force, and if any laws are broken the veil should be lifted on the reporting.

These are so far my points, please feel free to send-in more.

Thanks Again.

Advertisements

About s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst

Political & Strategy Defence & Security Intelligence & Communications

Discussion

13 thoughts on “Help Required, Please (Add Your Thoughts To This Legal Framework List): ‘On The Laws to Undermine/Regulate The Use Of Force In The International & National Relations’

  1. I can’t support any of this ..but I do thank you for the subtle reminder to go increase my contribution to the NRA.

    Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2011, 4:42 pm
  2. The big question is one of enforcement. It would seem impossible to enforce these rules without the establishment of a world government powerful enough to suppress nation states (like the United States) that are clearly *not* interested in following these rules and would actively help others to break them. Your proposal looks like the ideas for the League of Nations post WWI. If you really want to present this as a practical ban, your proposal needs teeth–someone or something capable of enforcing it against the would-be empires of the world, or those who might vote for it and pay lip service to it while circumventing it in practice (China comes to mind).

    As far as the rest of it–I support the ban on mercenaries, but don’t see any way of enforcing it at present, nor of doing so in the future without creating an intolerably intrusive “one world government” that I could not support under any circumstances.

    Posted by nathanalbright | August 26, 2011, 10:34 am
    • Thanks for commenting, Nathan.

      The presentation is not an ‘applied endeavour” but rather an intellectual-exploration, that I was tasked with to enhance the discussion on the question, ”What would I propose to undermine the use of force in the international arena?”.

      But good points made. We all accept that no one is going to really implement these hence my old thesis, ”Perpetual War Not Peace: The essence of Humans”, arguing against the illusions of Kant’s perpetual peace thesis, this essay can be located on e-library under political essays, sorry for grammatic and other errors to be found on this paper, as it has never been edited.

      And the concept, coming back to the questions raised above, does not necessary means an implementation and a set up of a world government, but rather an international organisation, not UN (this will rather be stripped of its security council status, and reduced to socio-political forum), that will be tasked with only the regulation of political violence; meaning, the new laws of wars.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | August 26, 2011, 10:42 am
  3. the contradiction to which Nathan alludes, without mentioning it explicitly, is that this initiative would require an enforcer, and at least initially — there would be now way to enforce the rules without being backed up by the threat of force — which would contradict the principles that were being promoted. while i am in general absolutely in favour of human beings agreeing to de-militarise society as much as possible (massive standing armies are a recent phenomenon as they are only feasible in wealthy and industrialised societies), this contradiction would be a serious challenge to the legitimacy of the initiative. a revolution in values is needed from the bottom up — not a top-down solution. otherwise you’ll have people like our fan of the NRA up there, taking up arms against it. so in order to undermine the use of force in the international arena, i would suggest the best long-term method is encouraging peace-building initiatives, discussion and co-operation between different countries at the grassroots level.

    Posted by Anonymous | August 26, 2011, 1:32 pm
    • Brilliant, anonymous!

      I really love it. I would love if you elaborate a little bit more on ‘grassroot levels initiatives’. I had similar idea, for example, focusing on the young-minds education, but this too me appear more fatalistic as we would have to manipulate history, and ‘outlawing’ all philosophical sympathies on the ‘necessity of wars’, from example, the late enlightenment age philosophers and their theories of natural state of states; well put into concise statement by the famous sociologist, Charles Tilly when he stated, War made Society, and Society made War (the natural law).

      Is it the question of entertainment? or what please inform, I, personally got bogged-down here harder then on other areas.

      Thanks Again.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | August 26, 2011, 2:12 pm
      • entertainment could be one place to start. currently both films and video/computer games actively promote war, militarise society, and normalise killing as an amusing pastime. however, this is also one of the most difficult areas to address, as an outright ban on violent games would likely be opposed as an assault on freedom of expression. one method might be to launch campaigns targeted at parents to discourage them from buying such products for their children, and to fund further research into the effects of violent imagery (currently the inconclusiveness of such research makes it hard to definitively speak out against these games/films as harmful).

        Tilly’s observation was an historical one: his thesis was that the existence of armies was a major factor in the evolution of the nation-state — he wasn’t necessarily saying that war was a natural condition of human existence. but even if theories exist that war is ‘natural’, this doesn’t mean that we can’t teach them in a critical way. the use of violence as a means of conquest or a means of resolving conflict is not inherently human, it’s a subjective value that we’ve grown to take for granted. history is usually taught through the lens of warfare, empires, and revolution — one conflict after another — but this is an incomplete view. there is much more to history than just war. therefore, it is important that history be taught from a more all-encompassing and critical perspective. it’s possible to teach about war in a way that does not simply accept war as inevitable, but instead presents it as a harmful, destructive, and expensive waste of human life. it would also be useful to engage children in peer mediation, where they are tasked with solving conflicts that arise among other students (a programme like this existed when i was at school). you could also have veterans who served in active combat speak to students.

        at the level of higher education, perhaps one measure would be to ensure that degrees in peace studies, conflict resolution, mediation and so on are available at all universities.

        it would also be important to make sure that ‘remembrance day’ celebrations do not glorify war, while acknowledging the sacrifices made.

        provide funding to organisations that support peace-building initiatives, promoting cultural exchanges between schools, other institutions, and cities in different countries.

        just a few thoughts…

        Posted by Anonymous | August 30, 2011, 5:20 pm
      • by George, this is so brilliant, though I finished typing and sending in the paper for review pre-presentation, I am definitely quoting this entire passage of yours anonymous.

        Thanks, just brilliant.

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | August 30, 2011, 5:24 pm
      • you’re welcome, i’m very glad i could help! i’m sure you can also find some examples of the types of organisations i mention online (in the UK there are a few campaigning against youth violence for instance).

        one other thing i would add, is that language is a very powerful tool in forming our perception and judgments. therefore, a change in values requires a change in the way we talk about war. the kind of language we use to describe warfare should reflect the fact that war is not a pleasant or positive undertaking, call things by their real names and avoid euphemisms. to give a slightly silly example, the Ministry of Defense is really the Ministry of Killing in Self-Defense and Wreaking Death and Destruction on Foreign Countries! also, we should be aware of the fact that we very commonly use the language of warfare in everyday speech (tactics, strategy, crush, blast, attack, go on the offensive, etc) and that this, again, normalises violence.

        where i said that veterans could speak at schools, i would also add that giving civilians (both children and adults) who have experience war, a public platform to voice their experiences as this is quite a powerful way of conveying what war is really like.

        Posted by Anonymous | August 31, 2011, 10:57 am
      • Excellent Again, Anonymous.

        I should have you as a guest speaker on the ”soft aspects of containment”, in a manner of speaking. The Talk is going to have veterans, I myself was one, as a child soldier and ”professional” soldier.

        On Linguistics problems, again, to the problem you have been able to focus on. This is an important aspect of postmodern school of thought”, made more key with writers such as Satre, Derrida, Foucault, Nietzsche and more recent, the linguist Noam Chomsky.

        There is, without a doubt, deeper underlying solutions, though long-term, strategic and much more demanding in implementation, all these can nevertheless provide excellent auxiliaries towards dealing with the problem within the ”rule of law” model.

        Thanks a Million, again.

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | August 31, 2011, 11:24 am
  4. Just to build on this last point a bit, there may be an inherent flaw in this entire project. You seem to take the international state system as a given (see section 3 for example) and presumably any international agreement would be signed by individual states – probably a fair assumption given the realities of global politics today. Yet states themselves are repositories of power (per Weber.) I think it becomes very difficult to separate out states’ actions in the domestic arena and actions in the international arena – they may act perfectly peacefully in the international realm but still exert coercive power over their own citizens. In a globalized world the definition of citizen becomes increasingly complicated (for example, Julian Assange is a citizen of Australia? On what basis then can the US exert coercive pressure on him to act in a certain way, ie: close Wikileaks?) A source I’ve always found good on this even if it doesn’t necessarily provide an answer is Tilly’s Warmaking and Statemaking as Organized Crime. (See here: http://www.jesusradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/warmaking.pdf)

    Posted by Mark | August 26, 2011, 7:07 pm
    • Hey Mark,

      Thanks for great comments, and the pdf paper, I read it before really excellent piece. However, I fear though you are on the correct line of analytical analysis of the statecraft and international or intranational relations, it does seems as most who have answered back to be amiss on one little significant point; the presentation, perhaps I should have mentioned this in hindsight, is based around what we refer to as ‘post-modern world’, not the old modern world which revolves around the old-Westaphalian concept and practices of ‘statehood’, we have alas, passed that so long time ago, now the ‘blocs’ and the ‘international institutions’ are the new powers; these have shallowed up the old states, and without these the old states can no longer survive in peace.

      Please see e-library section for this book ‘Empire by Hardt and Negri’, this book will give you exactly the picture of a new post-modern world, though be warned the authors were leftists/neo-marxists comrades.

      Enjoy, and Thanks Again.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | August 26, 2011, 7:20 pm
      • This is my reply to a comment posted on Intelligence and Security Forum by Stephen:

        ”Hi Stephen,

        I was stating to the few who have commented via emails and the web-blog comment-section, first, it the UN will be robbed of the privilege as that of Security Council, viz, the ability to define and declare wars or peace. Instead, a new international institution, tasked with only single responsibility, to regulate the use of force in the International Relations, but never national (I seemed to have come heads-on with ”NRA-fans”, and also, national should be left to national governments and UN as a diplomatic and socio-political point of focus (even though, personally, I do not think much of the organisation).

        Thus, it is this new Institution Against Political Violence in International Arena, empowered by new International Laws of Violence that will ‘watch’ and take to account all those who trampled over the framework. Their most significant role will be ‘preventive’, before containment, meaning, discouraging the use of force, as a natural tool of policy, by banning private arms industries etc, as listed on the post (that regulating warfare and any conditions that might give rise to it), and if these some how fail, they will still be able to;

        (a) discourage any alliances being built in support of belligerent parties
        (b) conduct open information warfare against the belligerent parties directed towards the average populace of the world; pointing the fingers to where the blames should really be, for the coming aggression (not like present).
        (c) and start conducting extensive, three decade of, economic and other restrictive measures placed upon the belligerents (ostracising these parties in international arena, and national affairs).

        and so forth, the list s long and creative.

        Another minor point to be made, is that, the task of the presentation placed on me, is an intellectual debate, not a practical advice. We all know that no one, especially, all, will be for action against any future aggressive behaviour from states, as states get rich through wars, as individuals too (Fichte: German Enlightenment Philosopher).

        The Institution does not need to raise or keep a standing interventionist or disciplinary armies, but only use the set-agreed legal framework to undermine any encroachments with tendencies towards violence in international relations; use the strength of ‘democracies’ as their weakness, the rule of law; if they revere this rule of law so much then it will be incomprehensible to ‘break the holy laws’????”

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | August 27, 2011, 2:10 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: