Criminality as an Obstacle to Global Justice - Essay Example

Name: College: University: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction Our principal focus in this particular discussion is the pursuit for global justice. This essay is an in-depth examination of the extent to which the notion of criminality poses an obstacle to the pursuit of global justice. It also includes a case study analysis of how criminalizing a particular concept leads to it not getting global justice. Criminality and the concept of global justice In a legal context, criminality presupposes the tendency or predisposition to commit an act or omission that essentially constitutes crime. It is prudent to note that criminality applies to individual actors, the state and other institutions (Bull, 1977). The concept global justice as used here refers to a situation in which players in the international system coexist by way of adherence to ethical, moral and equitable standards. Global justice connotes moral obligation, rationality as well as mutual respect amongst all actors worldwide (Beitz, 1999). The concept can be analysed from the perspective of criminal law or even market economy. It is on the foundation of these that the governments have set some basic requirements to ensure that justice is observed. These basic requirements involve establishing standards that preside over the justification for war, and the principles that define the fundamental human rights. Evolution of the concept of International Justice The idea of justice originated in the west as a way trying to consolidate relations among specific communities among the Greeks. This concept was later brought forth by political philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. John Rawls is credited for advancing the concept. However, in the contemporary world, governments embraced the ideas, after man assessed the impact of his cause after the world wars. Such a body as the United Nations (UN) and its branches were formed (Nardin, 1983). The formation of institutions of justice is not aimed to maintain a neutral state. They are supposed to refrain from any politics aimed at justifying their legitimacy. Neither should they extend any social economic justification. Nevertheless, for these institutions to operate effectively they in one way or another find their way in operational systems such as government institutions, non-government institutions, among other groups and sub-groups and influence indirectly. For instance, the United Nation has been criticized for funding parallel groups to oust government s that affect their operations. Example is the case of Somalia during the times of Mohamed Siad Barre. In order to offer subsistence to refugees, host governments have to comply with certain policies of these international groups (Buchanan, 2004). Countries in developing world like Africa have to comply with certain policies in order to access global funds through the International Monetary Funds (IMF). This is aims to demonstrate that the nature of operations of these international institutions of global justice, natural gives rise to claims for their justification. This in effect leads to putting pressure on their subject’s sovereignty. It is sometimes is met with a great opposition as it is seen as threat to freedom. In an attempt to pursue global justice, the international institutions have structured some guidelines that all countries must conventionally follow. Some of policies include anti terrorism laws, environmental policies, and use of weapons of mass destruction among others. In this paper, the case study interest is how criminalising terrorism inhibits realisation of global justice. Pursuit for global justice has been a controversial issue since its inception considering that at times it causes more harm than good. Attaining a conventional way of determining justice is a long way to go according to political analysts. ‘Why is this so? In his book, ‘Leviathan’, Thomas Hobbes noted that the idea of justice is founded on the bases of collective self-interest (Caney, 2005). He noted that all players in the international system are in a perpetual strife to advance their interests without regarding the interests of others. Once again, this begs the question of whether the established institutions have a standard way of ensuring equitable benefit for all in a global scale. International institutions are geared towards safeguarding the interests of people. In spite of their persistent efforts, they are subject to criticism for their deficiency. Though they have achieved a lot in realising international justice, these institutions are susceptible to political manipulation. This, as a result, leads to domination, victimization as well as economic and social exploitation among other forms of injustices (Walzer, 1983). These institutions are self-detrimental to the extent that criminality is an impediment for the quest of global justice. Perception and criminality Perception triggers the notion of criminality. An individual or an institution might appear to have a high propensity to commit crime due to either past behaviour or development of a recent tendency. This in turn compels others, in fear of their safety, to view them as potential aggressors. The desire to protect ourselves from prospective aggressors is a precautionary measure and is thus a proper motivation – as former US President George Bush would say,’ it is better to be safe than sorry.’ However, the quest to preserve the interests that we feel are of great value could come at a steeper price to others than anticipated. A humanitarian outlook demands that the course of preservation of human, state or institutional interests must not infringe on inalienable rights of other human beings (Solnit, 2003). Terrorism and perceived criminality One of the most criminalized concepts in contemporary global affairs is terrorism. The prevailing perception is that everybody from the Middle East is a potential terrorist. Numerous laws were set under the Anti-Terror Act of the year 2000 with the aim of mitigating international threat to governments. The laws on terrorism however, are criticised globally with most people wondering whether they have really achieved their intended purpose. The perception of the world towards Muslims is that they are in perpetual pursuit of terror. An UN research analyst claimed that despite justification of anti-terrorism laws that aims to protect the civil society against global threats of lives, these laws contain some political implications. The laws are overly discriminative – this discrimination results from the notion of criminality on terrorism. A report by a group known as ‘Campaign against Criminalising Communities’, (COMPACC) raised some very strong arguments that portray how misguided the antiterrorism laws are. They claimed that anti-terror powers have failed to substantiate between anti government protests and the acts of terrorism, this is due to their broad definition of the law. COMPACC further argues that terrorism has infiltrated many organisations to the extent that creates fears in a global scale. They also argue that these anti-terror powers have used the position to detain and torture people with suspected activities, and whose cases could be handled by other laws (de Porta, 2006). In a critical view, criminalising this act has posed a great challenge for global peace. Suspected terrorists, as a result, are denied their right to fair trial and are instead forcefully detained. Former US administration of George Bush is faulted by human rights watchdogs for alleged torture of prisoners of war at the Guantanamo Bay. The notion of criminality has seen the spread of the perception that suspected terrorist are not entitled to inalienable human rights. This leads to victimisation of terrorists. Mutual distrust The notion of criminality further accelerates the chances chaos due to expression of mutual suspicion between parties. Perception of potential aggression from inter alia ethnic, racial, religious or political differences often breeds mutual distrust and disquiet amongst different factions. The situation of distrust thrives amid fear from each faction not aware of what the other is planning (Gelder, 2006). Due to heightened state of suspicion and the subsequent fear of mutual annihilation, a nation state may decide to attack its perceived enemy in an anticipation of retaliation. If the culprit does not retaliate, like in the case of Rwanda, the war remains offensive. On the contrary, following an incident of perpetration, a country may decide to strike back in equal or more force. This retaliation constitutes defensive attack. Throughout history, political leaders from all over the world have perceived their adversaries as potential threats to their governments. Since most of the political adversaries are rebel forces, the leaders are under immense pressure to annihilate their forces. In the third world, rebel movements take root in ethnic and tribal backgrounds (Mapel & Nardin, 2006). It becomes extremely difficult to distinguish rebels from innocent civilians who reside in the same region since they all pay allegiance to the forces. A large number of civilians are therefore at the risk given that the authority can decide to attack the rebels at any time. Conclusion The argument posed in this essay demonstrates the extent to which the notion of criminality inhibits the pursuit of justice in the global context. This research recommends a radical reconstruction of international law to ascertain justice for all actors. This would in turn eliminate the perpetrator – victim feature from the international setting. References Beitz, Charles (1999) Political Theory and International Relations. Revised edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press Buchanan, Allen (2004) Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination: Moral Foundations for International Law Oxford University Press: Oxford Bull, Hedley (1977) The Anarchical Society. London: Macmillan Caney, Simon (2005) Justice Beyond Borders Oxford: OUP de Porta, Donatella (2006) The Global Justice Movement: Cross-national And Transnational Perspectives. New York: Paradigm Gelder, Melinda (2006) Meeting the Enemy, Becoming a Friend. Boulder: Bauu Press Nardin, T & Mapel, David (1992) Traditions of International Ethics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Nardin, Terry (1983) Law, Morality and the Relations of States. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press Solnit, David (2003) Globalize Liberation: How to Uproot the System and Build a Better World' San Francisco: City Lights Walzer, Michael (1983) Spheres of Justice New York: Basic Books Read More