The Utilization of Force in International Relations (Research Paper Sample)

Name Course Professor Date The Utilization of Force in International Relations People and states have had different approaches to managing international conflicts. Even though diplomacy has always been the call for most states and international unions, such as the United Nations, others still resort to the use of force. For instance, countries with territorial disputes view each other as threats and are likely to use force to eliminate their foes from their perceived boundaries and territories. However, this approach is not an effective strategy considering that it leads to the loss of lives of numerous citizens, while the countries involved become long-term enemies. The hatred associated with international conflicts limits regional development since it deters the movement of factors of production. At the beginning of the 20th century, the use of force was banned, with the explicit exception of self-defense. The exception is grounded on the idea that some situations call for using force to save lives and protect a country's strategic sectors from being destroyed by the enemy. The ban on using force aims to foster international peace, close working relations, and ensure that every state has the best environment to foster productivity and contribute to its own and international interests. Even though using force in international relations is illegal and unethical, some situations call for its use to protect a nation from the enemy. Strict Laws Governing the Use of Force The UN Charter and modern international law have strict rules governing the use of force. The UN Charter provides that its member countries should refrain from using force in their international relations (“United Nations Charter” para 4). According to the UN, all member countries should not use force against political impendence, territorial integrity, or in any manner inconsistent with the UN's aims to bring peace to the globe. In its preamble, the UN Charter retaliates the willingness and commitment of the member states to save generations from the scourge of war, which lead to untold sorrow to people. The UN commits to protecting human rights, dignity, and self-worth and ensuring that men and women enjoy equal rights in the nations to which they belong (“United Nations Charter” para 1). Therefore, the Charter prohibits the use of force so as not to take the globe to the old days of the First and Second World Wars, where millions of people lost lives and the effects of which are still felt today. All UN member states are obligated to refrain from using force in international relations. Article 2 clause 4 of the UN Charter notes that member states should not resort to the use of force, implying that countries should not engage in hostilities. The use of force goes beyond the physical aggression with the use of military and includes the threat of using force (Deitelhoff and Zimmermann 62). In the 1970s’ UN Declaration on the Principles of International Law, the organization pointed out the need for member states to use friendly approaches that would foster peace while addressing the political, economic, and social discourses. The organization noted that diplomacy has long-term positive implications for nations involved in conflicts and should therefore be adopted as the only and best resort unless the countries use explicit exceptions of the ground for using force. The declaration also provided that the use of force and the threat to use force against other states violate international law and go against the UN Charter and should therefore not be employed as a means of settling disputes (Deitelhoff and Zimmermann 67). According to the United Nations Charter (para 3), a war of hostility is a crime since it compromises peace on which the UN member states are grounded. Therefore, it is prudent for nations to ensure that peace and diplomacy prevail in all their international talks and conflict resolution processes. Explicit Exceptions for Use of Force in International Relations However, there are some exceptions where the UN member states are allowed to use force. The first scenario is for self-defense. Article 2 clause 4 states that nations should refrain from the use force to foster peace and stability during conflicts (Wood 3). This section is, however, silent on what happens when a nation is attacked by armed military from another nation. The critics to this article argued that even though a nation may intend to use diplomacy, the conflicting state could send its armed troops to attack it. In such cases, the critics note that diplomacy cannot apply. Article 51 of the UN Charter was thus created to fill the gap on what should be done when a nation is attacked. The article provides that in situations when a country is attacked by the armed forces of another nation, it is at liberty to use whichever available methods to defend its citizens and property (“United Nations Charter” para 2). However, there should be a reasonable ground to show that a country was under an armed attack and that the use of force was the best strategy in the situation. Additionally, countries involved in war could use force upon the authorization of the UN Security Council. Article 42 of chapter VII of the UN Charter provides that the Security Council may be involved in attacks by air, sea, or land if that is the best approach for fostering peace in the countries and regions affected by war (“United Nations Charter” para 3). In some cases, the UN may be involved in supporting one nation against the other when established that it unduly attacked the other, compromising the safety of the people and property within the nation and other neighboring states (Wood 5). Therefore, the Security Council has the authority and power to declare war or order another nation to use force against its opponents only after establishing that such a route would foster timely peace, order, and stability in the affected region. Finally, countries can use force in international relations after being granted permission by the General Assembly. The General Assembly adopted the Uniting for Peace Resolution in 1965. The resolution provided that the UN General Assembly will act to foster peace when the Security Council fails in that mandate (Deitelhoff and Zimmermann 64). Therefore, the General Assembly can recommend collective measures to be undertaken by the member states, including but not limited to the use of armed force, especially when its permanent members do not support the decisions taken by the Security Council. Article 7 of the 1974 General Assembly Resolution on aggression gives the people forcibly deprived of their self-determination the freedom to struggle and use any method available to restore their freedom (Deitelhoff and Zimmermann 67). This provision implies that the aggrieved country under the threat of armed attackers is allowed to use force as long as the context is consistent with the criteria set by the General Assembly. It is impossible to completely ban the use of force since it is used in modern international relations in different forms. Even in the absence of war, there are several instances in which law enforcement officers use force against citizens from other states. A notable case is in the territorial boundaries, where crossing from one nation to another is not allowed unless with the right and legal documentation. Citizens who are found crossing illegally are subjected to unfair treatment, torture, and forced deportation regardless of whether or not they had a sound reason for being in a country, even if they used illegal means of entry (Wood 5). Under the UN international relations law, illegal immigrants must be deported to their nations through the right channels set by the immigration departments of the involved nations. However, force is often used by immigration officers to send such people away, confirming that brutality is still experienced despite the presence of international laws that prohibit the use of force. Responsibility to Protect and the Use of Force The UN Charter that bans use of force unless under special circumstances contradicts the responsibility to protect provision. The obligation to protect is the responsibility of each nation, with the focus being to end the worst forms of violence resulting in people's death and persecution. The Act seeks to narrow the gap between the pre-existing conditions of the UN member states under international humanitarian and human rights law (“United Nations Charter” para 1). The argument is that even though the UN member states are banned from the use of force, they are exposed to other threats, which include ethnic cleansing, a war crime, and genocide, which violate their human rights. Based on the Responsibility to Protect provision, all the UN member states are required to safeguard their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes against humanity (Peak, Laderman and Jacob 263). This responsibility is huge since the buck stops at individual states, not unions such as the UN. Based on this provision, the ole of the member states is to prevent the crimes listed by adopting different but necessary means. The UN accepts the responsibility of each state, considering that it is aimed at protecting the citizens from crimes and their associated adverse effects. On one hand, this concept was created to prevent such types of international crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, but it can also be used to argue for the illegal use of force. The Responsibility to Protect provision also required the international community through the UN to act and help the member states eliminate the criminals. The community is expected to act following the UN provisions that ban the use of force unless with special circumstances discussed above (““Responsibility to Protect” 1 para 1). The use of force is likely to be felt by most countrie...