The Attack On International System

World order are the activities and relationship between the world states, and other significant non-state global actors, that occur within a legal, political and economic frame work. The need for world order has arisen due to the past historical conflicts, colonialism, greater interdependence between nations, and the increased impact of the activities of nation states upon other nation states. Legal measures such as the UN, as well as non-legal measures such as the media and Non-governmental organisations, show a mixed effectiveness in response to resolving conflict and working towards world order.

On the date September 11, 2001, the world stood still and watched the horror of terrorism unfold in the heart and soul of the United States of America. For the world, this was just the beginning of the terrorist attacks that will take place. In my essay I will carefully evaluate the measures taken by Governments to stop the terror attacks from happening, through my paper I will discuss the United Nations (UN) and global counter-terrorism, summarising the facts on the 9/11 attacks, furthermore the connection between Muslims, United

There have been a number of instances in which the United Nations is not effective in enforcing international law. They are not successful as states are able to decline the authority of the International Court of Justice to hear the case. This

The last article, “Loopholes for the Mullahs,” illuminates on the concept of the Obama Administration laws on what Iran can do under agreements made and what they are actually allowed to do. What ISIS can do and what ISIS does is almost never the same. A lot of the time ISIS finds loopholes which America allows and does nothing about. The author finds that if what they can do and what they are allowed to do were the same the world would be a better place. The author also believes that the government tries to convince the world everything is fine even when ISIS is allowed to run ballistics on missiles and other dangerous

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

Terrorism is a massive problem--everybody realizes that. Regardless of origin, culture, country, or political standpoint, every sane person understands that terrorism is something that is still relatively prevalent in the world, and something needs to be done about it. The problem, however, is that there is no easy solution. The United States tends to take overbearing control and responsibility for all terrorist threats, groups, and attacks, but this is simply not reasonable. Although we cannot expect every country to take initiative against terrorist threats like ISIS, sustained international coordination is necessary to effectively confront transnational terrorist groups (Shirkey). This way, the US can begin taking care of themselves and their own country, as they still have many issues that have yet to be solved. While working together is important, though, it is not the key to solving the problem. What we must do in addition is investigate and address the root causes of terrorism, and analyse them in detail in order to best combat terrorist groups at their roots.

International law is defined as a set of rules that countries follow in dealing with one another. Since there is no world government, there is no

The war on terror, following the events of 9/11, made people acknowledge a new form of enemy. Terrorisms became the central focus of nations and various actions were taken to ensure that such a horrendous act never transpires again. However, the problems associated with these legal constraints has led to many international law violations. This paper will seek to discuss these legal constraints and its effect on the war on terror. In order to demonstrate this, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be examined to understand whether the legal actions of the United States were appropriate and legal. The principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to jus in bello (also known as “the laws of war”). These three principles are closely interconnected with one another and are necessary to determine whether a war can be perceived as being legitimate.

Since the start of the Syrian civil war, over 250,000 people have been killed in acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Nations has recently declared acts of genocide and crimes against humanity to be occurring in Syria, yet a massive military intervention has yet to occur. The conflict has now begun to effect mainland Europe and western powers, as the rise of ISIS has become a threat to the whole of the international community. With Germany taking in millions of refugees, they have absorbed most of the inherent terror risk, but with the recent airport bombings in Brussels and the attacks in Paris, ISIS has shown that if they are not met in Syria with grand military force now, they can and will carry out these same terror attacks in the United States and other western countries including Canada and the United Kingdom. This paper will give a brief overview of the history of the current Syrian conflict starting in 2011, and will determine whether the United Nations and the international community has jurisdiction to intervene with military force under specific documents like the Rome Statute, the United Nations 2005 Outcome Document, the United Nations Charter, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by comparing the current Syrian conflict to the Libyan Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. Lastly, this paper will provide options for Prime Minister Trudeau for Canada 's participation under the legal jurisdiction of

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.

In this essay, my arguments are not entirely against the use of military force rather how the force actually is applied. Based on numbers of issues where international community has failed to address genuine humanitarian crisis and how some states have manipulated the norm and used other tools to promote and justify their interest related interventions defying the law and limiting UN as just an institution without any significant power.

A number of researchers, especially realists, believe that the anarchy does exist in contemporary international politics, since there are “no hierarchy of authority exists in international relations” (Pease, 2008:51). International anarchy does not always mean chaos or disorder, however, it urges each state to arm itself for self-defence, and it may also fraught with serious military conflict. Although the Preamble of the United Nations (UN) Charter states that one of the duties of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security”, it is not widely regarded as international government, which exercises its authority all over the world. Still, millions of people believe that the international organisations, especially the United Nations play crucial roles in preventing and resolving military conflict between states. In this essay, I will examine whether the international organisation, especially the United Nations contributes to prevent or détente international disputes caused wholly or partly by the elements of ‘international anarchy’, or not.

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

After the League of Nations failed to prevent WWII, the UN was established as a replacement of the flawed League of Nations to maintain international peace and promote cooperation. In addition, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was formed by the UN Charter, and its jurisdictions can be enforced by the UN Security Council (but is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the council). The UN has helped to diffuse the tension between USA and USSR over the Cuban Crisis of 1962, succeeded in averting the Arab-Israel war in 1967 and so on, proving the capability and functions of the UN.

The International criminal court was established at the Paris Peace Conference Following the First World War, because some of the most heinous crimes were committed during the conflicts which marked the twentieth century.3 Unfortunately, many of these violations of international law have remained unpunished and the role of the International criminal court was to bring past and future dreadful crimes to trial and to be punished, and