Last week we delved into the different schools of
international theory and most people tended to lean toward the side of
realist. It was agreed that, in the end,
the state will look out for its own interests; however, there was some debate
as to safeguards being put into place to make sure those interests did not
result in total self destructive behavior (i.e. a nuclear war).
This week we look more closely at the school of
constructivism and how it holds up to the ideas of a realistic world. The ideas (values) of realism are for a state
to maintain its sovereignty. This has
been the cause of a number of disputes to the legitimacy of many international
organizations. China, as a member of the
P5, is usually quiet in voicing its opinion on laws or sanctions until it seems
that these sanctions are infringing on sovereignty. As a general rule they do not want to set any
precedence that could lead to their sovereignty being put into question. The United States signed the Roman Statute, albeit
conditionally, but rescinded its signature to protect itself from persecution
for any actions the state thought necessary that would, probably, be grounds
for investigation in the eyes of the ICC.
This is the sole reason the U.S. left the ICJ, after the Nicaragua
incident.
This is where realism and autonomy rear its head and
displays the state’s natural tendency towards survival mode. All actions are justified when it concerns
the well being and sovereignty of the state and changing political or social
climates do not change that.
The fact that we have a United Nations, an International
Court of Justice, or an International Criminal Court shows a lean to a more
constructivist lifestyle, but the outcome has these institutions riddled with
realist overtones.
No comments:
Post a Comment