WORLD ORDER

(ESSAY PLANS)
RESPONSES TO WORLD ORDER
UNITED NATIONS
 world peace is extremely difficult when non-comliance is a continued motif within UN efforts for the
maintanence and promotion of world order.
 the UNSC disrupts the maintenance of peace through the use of veto power therefore showing the
ineffectiveness of this specific legal measure.
 highlighted in the events of the Syrian conflict that shows lack of ability to uphold R2P
- EG. where 460,000 Syrian civilians have been killed as a direct result of UN neglect, particularly on
the behalf of Russia, who activated their veto power 9 times during this conflict.
- The use of toxic chemicals such as chlorine gas was a major concern within Syria.
- Following these allegations, the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) was introduced as
an investigation into the responsibility of chemical weapons.
- Due to an exercise of Russia’s Veto power, the UNSC rejected a draft presented by the US, for
further investigative measures in Syrian use of chemical weapons.
- Further Into this conflict Russia again exercises their veto power, an article from the interpreter
“Syria: the disgraceful stain left by the UN Security Council veto” highlights this particular instance:
“The vetoed resolution would have demanded that parties to the conflict comply with international
law, including by putting an end to indiscriminate aerial bombing, minimising harm to civilians, and
not targeting medical and humanitarian personnel”.
- From this example it is clear that the UNSC can be considered very ineffective as a legal response
due to the veto power that the five permanent members have.
 This is extenuated further as these are the most powerful countries, who are often at the forefront of
such issues.
 EG. invasion of Ukraine
- Russia has and continues to breach a range of international law including but not limited to Article 2
of the UN Charter (use of force against the political independence of any state), several articles of the
Geneva Conventions, the Budapest Memorandum, the Genocide Convention and many more.
- Evidence of these breaches are mounting by the day, with almost “300 new war crimes being
investigated each day” (The Guardian) and thousands of hours of video evidence already uncovered
by the 42 ICC investigators working in the Ukraine at the moment (BBC).
- Yet the UNSC is powerless to act against Russia and enforce any compliance with international laws,
due to the veto power that Russia have used repeatedly to stop any resolutions being passed (‘Russia
vetos condemnation to invasion’ ‘Russia refuses to pass resolution demanding immediate withdrawal
from Ukraine’ (NY Times)).
- It is not just Russia who have been a thorn in the Security Council’s ambition to end the conflict,
with Xi Jingping stating “we support Russia’s sovereignty” and also refusing to pass any resolution
allowing forces to enter zones in the Ukraine, or supporting and end to the killing of civilians.
- US President Joe Biden has bypassed the United Nations entirely, sending hundreds of millions in aid
and military equipment to the Ukraine stating “And the United States and our Allies and partners are
moving as fast as possible to continue to provide Ukraine the forces that they need — the weapons
and equipment they need — their forces need to defend their nation.”

INTERNATIONAL INTSTRUMENTS
 when signed and enacted, signatory states are bound to uphold the conditions of which the treaty was
signed.
 For example, states that sign into NATO effectively guarantee peace if attacked by another nation
state.
- Since the signing of this treaty, during the cold war, conflict between signatory nations has been kept
to zero, expressing the effectiveness of treaties as a legal response.
 HOWEVER, whilst treaties are binding, issues of compliance arise wherein what steps are taken to
enforce the treaties.
 1863 Geneva Conventions (GCs) and the 1977 Additional Protocols (Aps relate to the treatment of
P.O.W’s and is signatory to all 193 members of the UN,
- however it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to abide by the treaty for the reason of ‘whose going
to enforce it?’
 - furthermore signing the treaty doesn’t not mean it has been enacted into domestic law, causing an
issue of non compliance as nations, due to their sovereignty, do not have to abide,
- EG. (US) treatment of prisoners of war (POW) at Guantanamo Bay Jail in Cuba, between 2003-2007
illuminates the insufficient enforceability the GC’s have had on nations. The US undermined GC 3,
‘relative to the treatment of POW’ whereby captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters were
inhumanely treated and denied right to trial by US domestic courts and the military tribunal,
emphasising how their individual rights were not protected
 The limitation of treaties is that for nations to sign, peace must first be obtained.
 Treaties are more often signed between states who are already at peace between each other, rather it is
the relationship between conflicting states that needs to be addressed in order to maintain world order.
 Treaties are therefore limited in its effectiveness when they cannot be implemented in situations that
threaten world order.
- This can be seen currently within the Russian Ukraine war, where negotiations are hostile therefore
returning no peace in eastern Europe.
- The conversation reports these failed negotiations over peace treaties in an article titled “Why do
peace talks fail? A negotiation expert answers 5 questions about the slim chances for a peace deal
between Russia and Ukraine” where it’s reported that “Putin squashed hope of an imminent peace
deal on April 12 when he said that the talks “have again returned to a dead-end situation for us.”
- This all the while war rages on within many parts of Ukraine
- Therefore, peace treaties are effective to a moderate scale in promoting and maintaining world order
as it has the capacity to instil binding laws that keep this peace; however, it continues to be
undermined by its practicality between conflicting states, of which are breaking world order

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

 Despite having success, courts and tribunals are mostly ineffective due lack of resource efficiency and
the time it takes to convict individuals and resolve disputes between states.
 EG. ICJ- ineffective due to its inability to enforce (can only make recommendations)
- Philippines V China; 2016, the Philippines brought forward to a case to the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (part of the ICJ) alleging China was in breach of international law, specifically the
UNCLOS (law of the sea)
- court supported Philippines acknowledging the waters are within the Philippine’s EEZ and that China
violated their sovereign rights by interfering with its fishing, petroleum exploration and by
constructing the artificial islands.
- The court however, would not make any determinations on maritime boundaries. Both China and
Taiwan rejected the ruling from the ICJ
- highlighting the effectiveness of the ICJ as a response, and the role of SS in impeding the resolution
of world order issues
- “Beijing rejects tribunal’s ruling in South China Sea case” (the guardian, 2016)
- South China Sea: Inside Chinas plans to claim ocean dominance (news.com, 2020
 EG. ICTR- ineffective
- created several months after the “100 day slaughter” (BBC 2019) that occurred in April 1994
- intended to indict those responsible for the violent massacre of civilians, however did not achieve this
successfully through the delayed response to act and meet society’s needs, as expressed by
Mwanymba (2001) words, “it was the longest, most expensive and possibly most failed trial in
international justice...full of mistakes, dysfunctions and inadequate behaviour at the ICTR, to the
detriment of victims.”
- lacked resource efficiency, costing almost 3 billion AUS dollars and accessibility due to the location
outside of Rwanda
 EG. ICC- ineffective is it has limited enforceability, wherein it relies on the compliance of nations and
individuals
- ICC only has enforceable jurisdiction on signatories to the UN and roman statute
- In the case of prosecutor v al Bashir 2009 who was wanted for corruption, genocide and war crimes,
the ICC had no jurisdiction to get al Bashir from Sudan as they were not a signatory to the roman
statute.
- this hinders the ICC’s R2P and its effectiveness of enforcing international law as well as portrays the
issue of compliance within the ICC as it relies on assistance of nations.

NON-LEGAL
 NGO’s have also been largely effective in the obtainment of world order.
 The International committee of the red cross ICRC assists in the enactment of the Geneva Conventions, as it
treats the sick and wounded in war regardless of which ‘side’ they are on, promoting a stable WO.
- Australian Aid declared that in 2010, the ICRC had provided health treatment to 5.2 million people and
provided economic assistance to 4.9 million people.
- Australian Aid claims that the ICRC’s “unparalleled access in some of the most fragile countries” make it an
effective organisation in the promotion of humanitarian law, thus assisting in the accomplishment of WO.
 Moreover, the International Crisis Group ICG was largely effective in achieving world order in the case of East
Timor.
- The ICG assists the Timor-Leste Government and the UN administration by producing reports on issues that
are of vital importance to Timor-Leste’s future peace and security.
- In particular, the 2009 report ‘No Time For Complacency’, noted that the security situation had dramatically
improved since 2008 but that there were still problems with security, the justice system and corruption was
still a concern.
- The report encouraged and recommended assistance from the UN, Australia and the international community.
- However, the international community has since not responded to the ICG report, suggesting the lack of
enforceability and jurisdiction of non-legal measures in achieving world order.
 Thus, while NGO’s provide an impartial and non-bias resolution to conflict, they lack enforceability and are
often rejected. However, the ICRC is largely effective providing greater protection for civilians during the
conduct of hostilities.