Security, Natural Law and its Application

Security, Natural Law and its Application
On an international level this is in line with the writings of both Locke and Hobbes. (refer footnote 1) Locke’s idea was to marry pre-existing natural law with an explicit contractual undertaking to found a State. Within the State individuals abandoned their prior natural right allowing for the law to be enforced on their behalf. States are now constrained by international norms with the way that they exercise their power within their territory and on their citizens. States can be held accountable for actions that they take that are not in accordance with international norms.

The following protocols, the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, rules instituted by the International Law Commission with regards to terrorist activity or improved and accepted standards for intervention based on humanitarian grounds by the United Nations adhere to Locke’s idea. Unfortunately the will of a state or international organisation to enforce these acts, rules or standards has been degraded by the interdependence nature that is international liberalism. For strategic nuclear assets this can in the long-term cause more harm than good under current protocols.

Similarly, by empowering an independent international organisation that is able to enforce security and safety requirements irrespective of a State’s current position towards the institution empowers the State and ensures its right to self-determination. (refer footnote 3) Hobbe’s idea that the natural rights attributed to individuals needs to be surrendered collectively to political authority, reflecting the absolute natural rights of the individual. Linking contractual requirements to individual rights legitimises the sovereign political authority. It also links the theory of the morality of states with that of realism providing for effective international liberalism in the case of nuclear security. (refer footnote 3)

Precedence has been set by the movement of the United Kingdom’s remaining nuclear weapons to the control of NATO. (refer footnote 4) It is indicative in application to being referred to as a Kantian approach. (refer footnote 5) The United States in 1946 under the Presidency of Truman offered to put its atomic weapons under the control of the United Nations. This would have resulted in the renunciation of nuclear weapons and placed control of uranium with an international environmental agency. The exploding of a nuclear device three years later to Truman’s consideration prevented this action from going ahead and the nuclear race and Cold War resulted. (refer footnote 6) The idea is not new. It is only the application, which is being reinvigorated by the global environmental requirements. Both developing and developed States would be bound by the requirements.

Today, in the absence of the Cold War there are growing energy demands for both developed and developing States. States not recognised by the nuclear NPT that have publicly admitted or shown that they have nuclear weapons have been internationally supported in their acquisition for nuclear strategic assets for civilian purposes. The requirement for the empowerment of an international institution administered by an independent international organisation has been significantly increased. The independent international organisation would have an aim in ensuring the security and safety of the individual. It would ensure transparency and assure that the rights of the individual State are respected. This would be not at the detriment of the rights of the regional or international community to be free from a nuclear incident. The organisation best placed for this function as has been previously stated would be the IAEA.

Footnotes
1. Reuben Wong in Christopher Hill & Michael Smith, International Relations and the European Union, Oxford, 2005, p143 Reuben Wong refers to Moravcsik’s interpretation of conventional statecraft. He refers to the Harvard approach for liberal intergovernmentalism when addressing the European Union’s state-to-state interaction. Moravcsik identifies that through interstate bargaining by member states the common interest can be raised even though liberal intergovernmentalism can be interpreted as materialistic or rationalistically bias. It is by the application of conventional statecraft, interstate bargaining to gain a common agreement that materialism and rationally based biases can be overcome to gain a converging preference for the common good when negotiating the nuclear issue.
2. Hutchings, op. cit., p33
3. A States current position is usually only a reflection of the individual or individuals in power at the time which in a liberal society are only motivated by the desire to remain in power irrespective of the long term impact of the popular policies that they adopt as an insurance for remaining in power. These policies may gain the individuals a second or third term but do not necessarily ensure the long-term economic or ecological advancement of the State, the region or the international system. Iraq being a signatory of the nuclear NPT was able to continue with the development of a nuclear programme similar to other State’s, Israel, Libya, India, Pakistan and North Korea who were not signatories of the Nuclear NPT. Each of these State’s by pursuing such action have not assured their State’s right to self-determination or were able to implement appropriate security and safety mechanisms to assure the State’s right to sovereignty. Their economic advancement and environmental assurances under the proposed context are identified as international as opposed to State issues. The moral and ethical decision making would be handed over to international institutions and organisations. Enforcement policy and procedures of these decisions to ensure States abide by them is an area that still requires significant development.
4. Kimberly Hutchings, International Political Theory, London, 1999. p33 and G, John Ikenberry. Power and liberal order: America’s postwar world order in transition. 2005. Princeton. p4. According to Ikenberry the liberal logic has been manifest most fully in the Atlantic community, and its institutional expressions of NATO and multilateral economic regimes.
5 Transferring control to a regional body provides for the transfer of sovereignty and alleviates some of the anxiety associated with referencing such weapons in a state’s own Foreign Policy or considering them when reviewing or assessing another state’s Foreign Policy. State’s historically have referred to nuclear weapons as strategic weapons to provide for a similar state response for foreign policy formulation. This effort, with advances in military technology for projected destruction capabilities and the possible accessibility by rogue elements has seen nuclear weapons move from being strategic to being a strategy for offensive or defensive security. Offensive, provided as a threat as was done by the French President Chirac, identifying that France was willing to use tactical nuclear weapons against any rogue element that were to bring destruction on French territory or French National Interests. Alternatively, defensive provided as a security measure, as with India and Pakistan with their territorial disputes or Israel with its territorial disputes with neighbouring Arab states. In the defensive strategy, it is doubtful that either of these countries have the intention to use the nuclear weapons to settle disputes but with sufficient provocation their resolve to maintain the shelving of such weapons can be significantly tested.
6 Geoffrey Robertson QC. Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice. 2000. Maryborough. p. 188