Order And Justice In The World Of Politics

Order and Justice in the World of Politics

Discuss about the Order and Justice in World Politics.

Order and justice in the world of politics have been a subject that elicits a great debate regarding on whether the two should be reconciled or not.  In the past decades, there has been increasing change in literature, which has been published, that consider the present globe order’s inequalities that are fashioned through broadening egalitarian, as well as inequalities shortage. Whilst spotlight has been on the ethical quest to restore politics to integrate the continuing globalization inclined on justice around the world; modest interest has been directed to this concern around the world. For the most of 20^th century, international and state communities awarded precedence to a perspective of societal order, which concentrated on the minimum provisions for mutual existence in a pluralist and conflictual world. Moreover, justice has been viewed as a secondary and to an extent that it confronts this kind of order in the global community (Bryman, 2008).

The state system is not the only order that operates the world, but there is the international system that operates governs the world. The world order entails a pattern of relationship that maintains and sustains the fundamental goals of the society that ensures that the world attains a specific order. It is believed that the world is governed by the international law that; however, the element of sovereignty persists in the world that makes it hard to reconcile justice and order. The world order is a system of structures that are sustained by different rules, as well as values regulation international political and economic collaboration and transactions. The world order is influenced by values and belief systems of dominant powers and the long and short-term security interests of dominant players (Jackson, R, 2000).

According to Hedley Bull in his book “The Anarchical Society”, which is seen as the basis for the aspect within the English School, between international justice, as well as the international order? Bull claims that the worldwide order is a model or outlook of global community, which maintains the fundamental objectives of the world. International justice founded on Bull’s argument implies moral and ethical principles that confer rights along with responsibilities upon states and countries, like the right of autonomy, the right of non-interventionism, as well as the rights of all independent nations to be handled on fundamental of equality. Thus, the anarchical society is dedicated to investigating the way the order is carried on in present world politics via the endeavors of international society. Furthermore, the global community allows the circulation of the authority of people through the plurality of nations, permitting every state in addition to nation tom build up its lifestyle (Bryman, 2008).

International Law and Diplomacy

The order is not merely a real or prospective state or affair in the world of politics; this is as well very commonly accepted as value. However, it is not only value in the line to which global conduct may be shaped, not essentially an overpowering one. In the current world order, it is regularly argued that while the Western states, in the pledge to present their policies, display themselves to be principally concerned with world order of the nations of the purported Third World are alarmed with the attainment of justice in the society.

It is believed that an order does exist in the world of politics as mirrored in the present, as well as historical developments. The international system should have universal standards, interests, as well as common institutions within these systems that bring about social order in the world. Furthermore, the world order that is present in the present world is unstable and flawed. It has been seen that the present order in the world is anarchical because there are no hierarchical degree of sovereignty above every state, no state or states. The world order offer by international society is forever in antagonism with the aspects of a situation of conflict along with intercontinental solidarity variance. Nevertheless, this is important that an appropriate structure in the world order be established to offer better order in the world of politics. Therefore, the preservation of order in the world of politics is not only impacted by conditional realities, like a balance of power. The world order fundamentally relies on the existence of an intellect of universal goals and concerns in the elemental goal of social lifestyle, regulations that prescribe behavior along with institutions, which aid to make the rules functional.

International law contributes to world order. International law has three fundamental functions of international law that include the identification of concepts of a society of sovereign states, the fundamental state laws amongst states and another player in international society, and to mobilize conformity to the laws of global society. These functions are, certainly, necessary to the world order of politics; however, international law, not by itself adequate to bring about international order (Wheeler, 2000).

Additionally, the international order has been linked to diplomacy. Although the world of diplomacy facing the downturn recently, it is largely the influence of a broader decrease in the international order. The newly established institutions in the world of diplomacy, professional diplomacy will carry on serving international order via its primary role; communication, information, negotiations, minimization of friction and act as a symbolic role of the society of diverse states. Also, there are great authorities that result the global order in more than six ways. These ways include preservation of the general balance, prevention in addition to control crises, the universal practice of local preponderance, restriction of war, a great power concert, and sphere of influence, responsibility, and interest. Nonetheless, this is not what great powers do, or even what they must do. For example, during the Cold War, the United States, and Soviet Union to some degree undertake the six functions, and thereby help to maintain a kind of order, although the rest of the world sees this as an unfair order in the world of politics. Also, many authors have debated the degree of policies during the reign of Reagan, which led to the implosion of the Soviet Union, as well as the end of the Cold War that elicited the fact that justice being secured (Suganami, 2010b).

Cosmopolitan Justice and Pluralism

Justice in many instances is related to justice in the world of politics. The international society founded on cosmopolitan justice might provide an alternative to the state-centered, power-founded international law in the modern society. Through cosmopolitan justice implied what is good for the entire world as a “civitas maxima” (cosmopolitan society) where all people belong and where their interests must be subordinated. Employing the economic concept, the efficiency of international law is “ceteris paribus”, it needs definite conditions, as well as the fulfillment of these conditions are most of the time as part of the control. In evaluating modern international law, some primary change has been realized comprising the subject, scope and the task of international law. The law has been seen as an effective tool for the political purpose of all types along with the support of order is only among the many functions. This concept that place individuals in the form of society is another aspect that distinct from the traditional realists, which strict to the responsibility of the state as the primary player in the world of politics (Suganami, 2010a).

Moreover, pluralism has been the primary tactic of world politics, since the Peace of Westphalia treaty in 1648 that symbolized the end of the 30-year conflicts and the collapse of the solidarist Middle Ages. This opened up the international relations founded on the pluralist approach of sovereign states.

The incidents that took place in Libya and Syria during the Arab Uprising demonstrate the nature of order and justice in the world of politics. The response by the international community in the case of Libya was validated via solidaristic claims for justice, while the reaction by the international community in the case of Syria was confirmed via pluralistic arguments for order. The incidents that happened in 2011 in Libya and Syria was designed to invoke a democratic reform, with the use of protests and revolts. In spite of similar objective of the protests and revolts in Libya and Syria attracted a diverse international response. Additionally, other than perceiving justice and order locked in a seasonal tension, solidarism examines to the prospect of overpowering the conflict between justice and order by designing practices, which acknowledge the mutual interdependence between the two arguments (BBC, 2012).

Conclusion

It is important to comprehend that justice and order may coexist in the present international community and the world society. There is a novel approach of reasoning regarding international relations as it is evident in the United Nations (UN) charter that support solidaristic approach. In the modern society, democracy comprises the ideological core of world order as seen during the World War II. Also, many states have not accepted the humanitarian programs that bring assistance to countries that are at war because they perceive the humanitarian interventions as ways of jeopardizing rules of sovereignty. Therefore, it is evident that the order an justice is challenging aspects that cannot be easily reconciled because of the diver views and structures in the world of politics.

References

BBC, 2012,  “Syria ceasefire: Security forces ‘fire at protesters” The BBC. Visited on August 4, 2016.

Bryman, A, 2008, “Social Research Methods” -3rdedition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buzan,  B.  (2001, “The  English  School:  An  Underexpolited  Resource  in  IR”,  Review  of International Studies, 27(3), 471-88.

Clark, I., 2007, “International Legitimacy and World Society”.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clarke, B, 2012, “The difference between Syria and Libya” Examiner. Visited on August 4, 2012.

Fierke, K.M., 2007, “Critical Approaches to International Security”, Cambridge, Polity Press. 

Jackson, R & Georg S, 2010, “Introduction to International Relations –Theories and Approaches” -4thedition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 5: 127-158.

Jackson, R, 2000, “The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States”,  Oxford :Oxford University Press.

Stiglitz, J, 2007, “Making Globalization work”, New York, NW Norton and Company Inc.

Suganami,  H.  2007, “Understanding  Sovereignty  through  Kelsen/Schmitt”,  Review  of  International Studies,  33(3), 511-530.

Suganami,  H., 2010b, “The  English  School  of  International  Relations:  Historical Development”, The International Studies Encyclopedia, edited by Robert A. Denemark. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, Vol. III, 1434-53.

Suganami,  H.2010a, “The  English  School,  History  and  Theory”,  Ritsumeikan  International   Affairs, 9, 10-20.

Wheeler, N. J., 2000,  “Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.