Using a range of contemporary examples critically analyse the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures in promoting peace and resolving conflicts between nation states.

World order is the balance of power among nations and the relationships between states that occur within a legal, political and economic framework. It protects human rights, promotes peace and allows for the resolution of conflict with the ultimate aim of promoting stability.

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organisation established in 1945 under the United Nations Charter, which is a multilateral treaty. It is the major international law making body, which also provides an international forum where international law is developed. The UN employs diplomacy and mediation to help nations prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully and to avert the suffering and destruction of war through the setting up of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The United Nations is effective in promoting peace as it encourages diplomacy, negotiations and bilateral or multilateral talks between nations as a method to resolve conflict. This is effective in promoting peace on a small scale however when there are too many parties involved in negotiations, conflicting interests of states often becomes an impediment to progress. Negotiating international multilateral treaties can be time consuming due to the scale of negotiations that must be undertaken and the conflicting interests of states making it difficult to come to a consensus. The recent Arm Trade Treaty (ATT), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in April 2013, was first addressed in 2006 with the adoption of Resolution 61/89 by the UNGA. Even today the ATT has not come into effect, as it required 50 ratifications before it can do so.

This creates another issue, as ratification is often a lengthy process. Most international treaties have conditions that state that the treaty only comes into effect after 50 nation states have ratified it. Usually it takes approximately 2 to 3 years for the treaty to satisfy the requirement of 50 ratifications before it comes into force. This lengthy process can often undermine the effectiveness of treaties, as during the negotiation and conferencing process, many acts of violence and aggression may be committed. This is especially challenging in terms of resolving conflict. One of the principles of state sovereignty is non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states. This limits the international community’s ability to help prevent breaches of international treatises when states cannot or will not deal with the issue themselves. Intervention is only justified if the United Nations Security Council sanctions it through a Resolution. There are a number of cases where the progress in creating and adopting a resolution is so lengthy that by the time the resolution is passed, it is unable to resolve conflict. Such was the case in Rwanda where it was only until August 1994, after the Rwandan Genocide had ended, that a UNSC resolution was adopted to establish an international criminal tribunal, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), to prosecute those individuals most responsible for the genocide.

Various ad hoc tribunals such as the Nuremburg Trials, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the ICTR are Legal bodies created under multilateral declarations, charters and UNSC resolutions. These bodies aim to deter future crimes, maintain peace and encourage reconciliation. A permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) later replaced these ad hoc bodies in 2002. These various international tribunals are effective in promoting peace as they act as a deterrent against breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of International Humanitarian Law, acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. These courts and tribunals are also instrumental in the development of international law

as it creates case law and precedents in international law. However they are relatively ineffective in resolving conflict, which can be seen in the ICTY. The ICTY was established under Resolution 827 in 1993 with the purpose of the restoration of peace; however the conflict continued until 1995. It then prosecuted individuals for breaches of the Geneva Conventions and crimes against humanity. 67 individuals have been sentenced as of 2013; however, these tribunals were time consuming and expensive.

The difficulty in enforcing international law arises from the need to respect the state sovereignty of nation states. This often impedes the international community’s ability to resolve conflicts. Principles of non-intervention must be observed and intervening in the affairs of other states is only allowed with UNSC authorisation in the form of a resolution. Without UNSC resolution, intervention can be seen as a crime of aggression. This is the case in Syria where a UNSC resolution has not been passed; therefore the international legal community is prevented from resolving the conflict.

Both the UN and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are forums where conflicts between states can be resolved without the need for violence. The UN encourages disarmament and the resolution of conflicts with the use of violence. It has created various treaties that restrict and prohibit the use of certain weapons. Some of these treaties include the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (1968), the Biological Weapons Convention (1972) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (1992). The treaties limit the use of weapons that cause indiscriminate and often devastating results. Watchdog groups such as the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons monitor these treaties to ensure compliance and discourage the use of them in armed conflicts.

The ICJ provides a forum where legal disputes between states can be submitted and settled by the court. Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, it allows for disputes between nations to be settled without violence; however the jurisdiction of the court is challenged by the number of states that have made declarations recognising the jurisdiction of the court. Only 70 states have formed Declarations Recognising as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court. Other states like the United States (US) recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ on a case-by-case basis. This highly restricts the effectiveness of the ICJ in resolving disputes between nations, as it cannot force states to comply with its judgement. This demonstrated in the Nicaragua v US (1986) case where the ICJ ruled in favour of Nicaragua and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. However, the US refused to participate in the proceedings and refused to accept the judgement. The ICJ can enforce its judgement in contentious cases, adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute between states, by taking it to the UNSC for enforcement actions. However this is often difficult as the permanent 5 members of the UNSC: US, Russia, United Kingdom, China and France, have the power of veto which when used, can effectively prevent any action from being taken. This was seen in the Nicaragua v US case where the US blocked the enforcement of the judgement by the UNSC and therefore prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation. This has led to a reluctance of the Court to become involved in a dispute where it is in the interests of one or more of the permanent 5 members on the UNSC to block the judgement if a nation does not accept it. This restrains the effectiveness of the ICJ in its ability to resolve conflict.

The ICJ is also effective in resolving conflicts between nations over a treaty. In some treaties, the parties may agree to add a provision stating that if there is any conflict between the parties to the treaty then the matter will be brought to the ICJ. This improves the ICJs effectiveness as in this case,

the Nation States are bound to accept the judgement by signing the treaty. Therefore when the ICJ is an effective legal forum for the resolution of disputes between states however its effectiveness is challenged by the non-compulsory acceptance of its jurisdiction.

One of the most effective methods of resolving armed conflict is the deployment of UN peacekeepers. Peacekeepers monitor and observe post-conflict areas to maintain lasting peace. After conflicts are over, it is easy to relapse back into violence; however, the presence of peacekeepers deters this and promotes lasting peace. In the case of East Timor, violence resurfaced after the UN presence had left however once peacekeeping operations resumed, the level and scale of violence decreased. UN peacekeeping is relatively effective with 29 of 45 peacekeeping missions have been successful since 1948. UN peacekeepers are also relatively cost efficient, as its average annual cost is $2 or 3 billion.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are important non-legal bodies that can assist the legal system in the promotion of peace and resolution of conflict. NGOs such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Amnesty International can push for the introduction of new international law. The ATT is a part of a larger global effort starting in 1997 where various public figures, such as the Dalai Lama, and NGOs, including Amnesty International and Oxfam International, which called for the establishment of standards for the arms trade to reduce the transport of weapons. Charitable NGOs such as the ICC are often important in maintaining peace after conflict by providing resources and aid. They also promote peace by delivering resources and building infrastructure like wells and schools in poverty stricken areas. NGOs promote education and equality and thus promote peace. The ability of NGOs to resolve conflict is ultimately very constrained as these bodies do not have legal backing and therefore they have no authority to enforce international treaties and standards. NGOs can assist the legal system by investigating breaches of the Geneva Conventions, genocide and crimes against humanity and document evidence that can then be used to assist in the prosecution of war criminals later on.

Media is a rather ineffective non-legal method of promoting peace and resolving conflict due to its lack of legal backing and the ease with which it can be manipulated. Media can only motivate governments and the international community to act against crimes internationally condemned crimes but cannot take any physical action, thus making them ineffective in the resolution of conflicts. Media is also easily manipulated based on the views of the people portraying the events. Media is also often very open to the use of propaganda and thus is not always a reliable source. Media can be effective in promoting peace as it informs the public of current world order issues.

Currently, the legal system is relatively effective in promoting peace through deterrence and UN peacekeeping efforts; however its ability to resolve conflict is limited by the principles of state sovereignty, particularly non-intervention. In the case of the ICJ and proposals to intervene in conflict, gaining authorisation from the UNSC is the biggest challenge to effectiveness as the veto power of the permanent five members of the UNSC allows them to effectively block any action that is not in their national self-interest. NGOs are effective in reducing causes of conflict through the promotion of equality and the deliverance of resources; however are limited by the lack of legal backing and authority.