The Nature Of Order And Justice In International Politics

Definition of order according to Hedley Bull

Describe the Nature of Order and Justice in International Politics.

According to Hedley Bull, order means that there are some certain things that contain some noticeable principles. To be more specific, it is a pattern that takes us to a particular outcome. This pattern can also be viewed as an arrangement of some sort of social life as it contributes to some certain values and goals in every society. However, the importance of the pattern is subjective. We have three unifying and underlying social objectives which are as follows; All the societies want to be sure that their life will at least be in some measure that will secure them against all the violence that might occur to them like bodily harm or death for that matter; the societies need to be sure about whether the promises or agreements made to them will be fulfilled, kept or undertaken by the government or politicians; the societies want to be assured that all their possessions and things will at least remain stable to some extent and will not encounter any challenges that do not have limits and at the same are also constant (Andreopoulos & Carey, 2016) .

All these issues of concern are so vital and important to the society, as they are the ones that make up our society. These issues are known to be primary because we have other goals that also pre-suppose the fulfillment of the same issues. These issues are widely classified as universal issues due to the fact that all the societies want them to be accounted for. These goals are so important and valuable to the society as they are independent of rules and also provide predictability to the human life. International order can be defined as patterns of activities that are able to sustain primary or elementary goals in a society of states.

State on the other hand, may be described as an independent political system that asserts her sovereignty and has a government in a specific part of the earth’s surface and a unique segment of people. World order is defined as dispositions or pattern of people who engage in activities that sustain their primary or elementary objectives of their social life among the other people as a society. World order is considered to be wider than international order as it includes a more broad world political system of which have state systems as part of it. The world is the main contributor in the achievement of order among the people and nations. In his research, Hedley Bull tells us that they are simply a part of the history records of the international relations between nations  (Eric, 2010).

Unifying social objectives of all societies

He believes that developed countries have already developed and will not stop developing not only to come up with an international system but will go as far as forming an international society. For so long, an idea of forming an international society has always been there. This is evidently being reflected in the today’s international reality. However, this has not been an easy ride by those who are pushing for this idea due to some limits by the international societies. The idea of international society gave rise to three philosophical strands about the international systems. These three strands are Grotian internationalist tradition, the Hobbesian realist tradition, and Kantian Universalist tradition.

Hobbesian views the creation of an international society as a state of war against all with a zero-sum game in legal and moral vacuum. The Kantian views international society as a cooperative community of people who have moral imperatives and a non-zero-sum game that is aimed at replacing the state system with a society that is cosmopolitan. The Grotian strand is considered to be unique as it stands between the Hobbesian and Kantian strands. The Grotian strand defines the sovereign states as the fundamental reality when it comes to the international politics and views the game as partially productive and partially distributive with both rules of expediency, imperatives, morality and law binding the game  (Gillian, Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account, 2009).

According to experts, we should ask ourselves whether these thoughts really conform to the current international reality. When we take a look at the element of the society, we see that the modern international systems reflect all the elements that have been singled out by the Kantian, Grotian and the Hobbesian. These elements are; the element of struggle and war to have power among nations by Hobbesian; the element of conflict, transnational solidarity by Kantian, and finally the element of regulated intercourse and cooperation amongst the states. However, when it comes to geographical theaters of state systems, historical and policies of different statesmen and nations, one among all these elements may end up dominating over the others  (Gillian & Harry, The Political Philosophy of Cospolitanism, 2005).

Many countries often give some respect to the basic rules of existence when it comes to the international society. This can be seen in the procedures of international laws, mutual respect for sovereignty, and the diplomatic system of representation. For instance, in the past, people that were seeking an avenue for negotiated peace or wanted to draw some attention to their common interest of their existence for example during the cold war, the second world war, Grotian just war and the Spanish Conquistadors. For many years now the topic on international distributive justice has been very prominent in the political philosophy. Most of the political philosophers have been only putting their focus on matters to do with poverty and wealth, and also how inequalities among the populate can be justified  (Green & Waters, 2010).

Difference between world order and international order

They have especially focused more on inequalities between those people who come from the same countries. Philosophical debate has emerged in the past few years on how these philosophical ideas can be applied to the institutions and relationships that are held at an international level. This debate has emerged as a result of matters of philosophy together with the realities of international poverty and globalization and to make it more interesting, the world is now viewed like a global village. Many questions have been raised like whether it is really justifiable that some people have so much when others only have little.

Signs of international political and economic interdependence indicate to us that there indeed exists a scheme of cooperation in the society, therefore it is important for us to stop viewing boundaries as though they have essential significance when it comes to our morals. We should all know that these boundaries are not coextensive with a scope of cooperation in our society, as they do not actually put limits on a societies obligation. The trends that are being witnessed towards more sophistication and greater theorizing on issues that touch on the international justice have both been encouraged and exemplified by Rawl’s publications about the laws of people. His publication influenced the current debates, concerning variety of matters like global input and international more so about the objectives of justice that is deemed to be distributive in the international realm. In the recent years, the idea of transitional justice has been coming up especially from the international human rights movement  (Monbiot, 2010).

This idea was first taken to be the judicial process that was charged with the responsibility of addressing violence committed against people either by the repressive governments or dictatorial during the process of democratic transition. The idea was later changed to mean and used as a way of processing mass human rights and war crimes that were being committed during violent conflicts in various countries. Ever since, this idea has gained tremendous significance in the international realm as a way of bringing to book the perpetrators and culprits of violence against the people. The idea has been discussed by different peacekeeping missions in the international forums that are mostly engaged in promoting peace in the countries that are perceived to be participating in violence against their people. These discussions have been going on for over two decades.

The field of transitional justice has for a long time been a preserve of the human rights activists, policy makers or prosecutors who most of the time serve in higher official capacities, people who have worked as judges, the legal scholars. More focus has been put in the jurisprudential and the philosophical aspects that are considered to be morally right. These efforts have particularly been geared towards the implementation and institutional design of various international tribunals. Many well recognized international experts in law have continuously written about the capacities, international legal procedures and development of the domestic or even the hybrid courts that mainly deal with greater human rights violations. Most of the researches done by the international law experts have majorly focused on the international courts that have been put in place to deal with cases like war crimes  (Pablo, 2002).

Some of these international courts and tribunals are; tribunals that were established to deal with cases of human rights violence in Sierra Leone, tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and lastly, the International Criminal Court that has in the recent years asserted its authority by prosecuting high profile cases and figures in the international realm. However it seems that efforts to promote order and bring justice to victims are being curtailed as many nations that are in transition have been forming truth and justice as a way of reconciling people. The danger with establishing these commissions is that there is no clear understanding on what these commissions are supposed to achieve. The disenchantment about these commissions has greatly contributed to overcoming the fixation when it comes dichotomies between justice vs. truth and also peace vs. justice. Most international experts agree that there is need for societies that recover from conflicts of violence and oppression need to be given both restorative and legal approaches that address different dimensions and levels of justice and truth  (Rawls, 2000).

References

Andreopoulos, G., & Carey, H. F. (2016). Justice and World Order: Reassessing Richards Falk’s Scholarship and Advocacy.

Eric, C. (2010). Coercion,Equity and the International Property Regime. Journal of Political Philosophy , 18, 16-31.

Gillian, B. (2009). Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account.

Gillian, B., & Harry, B. (2005). The Political Philosophy of Cospolitanism.

Green, J., & Waters, C. (2010). Conflict in the Caucasus: Implications for International Legal Order (Euro-Asian Studies).

Monbiot, G. (2010). The Age of Consent.

Pablo, D. (2002). Global Justice and Transnational Politics.

Rawls. (2000). Rawl’s Law of Peoples: Rules for a Vanished Westphalian World, ‘Ethics,. 110 (4), 697-721.

Bibliography

Bigelow, B., & Peterson, B. (2002). Rethinking Globalization: Teaching for Justice in an Unjust World.

Bull, H., & Hurrel, A. (2012). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics.