By David
Gallup
War is
state-sponsored terrorism. Or if not "terrorism," then legally
condoned killing. War-time killing is not considered to be a crime of "murder"
because states claim a power (currently considered legal) to wage war. Under
humanitarian law, war is meant to be used for self-defense. More often than
not, however, governments initiate internal and international wars as a tool of
aggression – to maintain power and control over people, land, resources and
ideology.
Is humanitarian law meant to stop
war?
Why do
national governments allow the carnage and barbarism to continue in Syria and
elsewhere? Because international humanitarian law (the “Laws of War”) allows
tanks, war planes, battleships, and missiles to be built, and to be bought and
sold as if they are fruits and vegetables in the produce section of a grocery.
Humanitarian
law starts with the premise that war can be controlled and have a useful
purpose. Humanitarian law posits that killing in war is okay as long as the
killing distinguishes between civilians and combatants, the killing is limited
in scope and time, and the war is winnable. The nation-state system’s attempt
to apply rules to war, rather than outlawing war entirely, is morally bankrupt,
especially in the nuclear age.
Nation-states
want to maintain their exclusive identity, usually at the expense of others
outside their putative borders. Because they must then protect those borders,
they will not give up their power – at least under the current international
law system – to build weapons for themselves and to sell weapons to their
allies or to various governments for strategic advantage.
Has there ever been any international
law attempt to stop war?
The 1928
Kellogg-Briand Pact (“General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument
of National Policy”) attempted to outlaw wars of aggression between nations.
Sixty-two of the seventy-three independent nations at the time had signed the
treaty. However, the treaty did not
address the issue of nations engaging in warfare as a measure of self-defense.
The treaty
failed because it did not limit the tools of warfare, and it did not create an
enforcement mechanism to ensure that all disputes would be resolved peacefully.
The nations continued to expand their weapons arsenals, and they did not cede
power to an external governing authority to handle disputes. A treaty between equally sovereign states,
such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, does not prevent those states from choosing to
wage wars, rather than go to court, as a final resolution to conflict. The governments
did not establish common world law.
Can existing international law or
current treaties prevent war?
UN
Charter:
The
purpose of the United Nations as outlined in Article 1 of the Charter is to
“maintain international peace and security,” to prevent and remove threats to
peace by peaceful means, affirm equal rights and self-determination, and to
achieve international cooperation to solve international problems.
The
problem with the UN Charter is that it encourages countries to interact peacefully
but cannot require them to do so. The first President of the UN General
Assembly, Dr. Herbert Evatt, elaborated, “The United Nations was not set up to
make peace,” he wrote in a letter to Garry Davis in 1948, “but only to maintain
it once it was made by the Great Powers...”
Furthermore,
the Charter upholds the “sovereign quality” of each of its members, barring
intervention in “domestic” matters. Because we have separated ourselves into
exclusive nations, we do not act as a unified whole to resolve conflict.
UDHR:
Articles
28 and 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirm that a
war-free world requires the protection of fundamental rights. Article 28 states
that a “social and international order,” i.e., peaceful human interactions, is
necessary for the rights in the Declaration to be realized. Article 30 states
that no state, group or individual has a right to participate in any activity (e.g.,
aggression) “aimed at the destruction of any of the rights” affirmed by the
Declaration.
The
problem with the UDHR is that its customary law status means that governments
have not agreed unequivocally to be bound by it. The will to enforce it has
been ineffective. Even with the ICCPR and the ICESCR, which are binding
treaties, governments are still able to violate rights with impunity – the
breeding ground for war.
Geneva
Conventions:
The 1949
Geneva Conventions and subsequent Protocols were created to limit the barbarity
of war by restricting conflict to military combatants, protecting the injured
and prisoners of war, ensuring the safe passage of medical and aid workers, and
prohibiting torture, rape and other war tactics that impose severe suffering.
As previously mentioned, these laws do not attempt to eliminate war, only to
reduce its impact on certain combatants and upon the civilian population.
Nuremberg
Principles:
The
principles recognized in the 1950 Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg
Tribunal affirm that individuals can be held responsible under international
law for war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity even
if acting upon orders of a superior.
These principles have become the basis for ad hoc tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Cambodia, East Timor and for the
permanent war crimes tribunal that now exists as the International Criminal
Court in the Hague. Although these principles attempt to hold individuals
accountable, because of political stalemates and an unwillingness to pierce the
veil of national sovereignty, individuals and governments are able to continue
the war game. More than 200 armed conflicts have been waged around the world
since 1950.
Can international courts intervene
to stop war?
Why do we
have international courts if not to help us to resolve our differences
peacefully, with and by law?
In 2010,
Garry Davis submitted a petition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on
the threat and use of nuclear weapons, because a nuclear war would be the actual
war to end all wars, the ultimate
crime against humanity.
Although
the petition was received, the court neither acknowledged the petition nor
rejected it. They simply ignored
it. The ICC is beholden for its
existence to the very states that perpetuate war and maintain the threat of
nuclear weapons. Because the ICC depends upon acceptance by states and upon the
states’ financial support, the ICC does not have autonomy.
If the
court had rejected Davis’s petition, then they would be violating the principle
of their own existence to adjudicate crimes against humanity of which nuclear
war is the utmost crime. If they had accepted the petition and adjudged the
case, then they would have had to reject the use of nuclear weapons in all
circumstances. The ICC was unwilling to set a new precedent because, in 1996,
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) established that nations could use
nuclear weapons for self-defense.
It seems
that the ICJ and the ICC can only attempt to adjudicate conflicts between
states or crimes of war after the fact, once a dispute or aggression has
started and oftentimes after it has ended.
As courts, unlike a parliament or congress, they cannot make law. They
have no independent Marshal’s Service to arrest suspects, having to rely upon
the nations to conduct this policing.
Existing international
law and tribunals have only been mildly successful in limiting the impact of
wars; they have not been successful in preventing or outlawing war.
So, how do we stop war?
Because nations
have waged war with increasing frequency over the past hundred years, it seems
impossible to stop war. Governments can easily wage wars because the
production, sale, distribution, and use of weapons is legal.
We now
need to outlaw weaponization. We need to make the production of weapons not
only illegal, but unprofitable. We need
to prevent governments and corporations from profiting off of death and
destruction. We need to make it economically, socially, and politically
untenable. Politics and government must be ethicized.
World laws
against war would establish financial and criminal penalties against
individuals, companies and governments that make weapons. This would require
not simply an embargo on arms, but a halt to the production of all new weapons
and the dismantling of current weapons. We
can repurpose the weapons manufacturing industry to provide tools of
construction, instead of tools of destruction – to provide machines and
products that help people live safer, healthier, happier and more productively.
We can recalibrate the global economy to produce goods, services and
infrastructures that help, not hurt, people. Countries should be exporting
life, not death.
The principle,
ideology, strategy and tactics of governments must be humanized and earth-ized.
So if governments won’t or can’t
outlaw war, itself, what about outlawing the tools that make mass aggression
possible?
We have
compliance programs to stop terrorist funding. Why don't we have compliance programs
to stop the sale of guns, tanks, warplanes, bombs, etc.? Why don’t we illegalize
the manufacture, sale, transfer and use of all forms of weaponry –
conventional, bio, chemical, psychological and cyber?
Cut off
access to weaponry, cut off its supply, and governments no longer have the
capacity to engage in warfare.
Aggression
among people who carry a knife or a bat or a broom may still occur. But that
kind of aggression would be much easier to stop with a peace or police force
than aggression that involves using weapons of mass killing and destruction.
Machine guns, tanks and bombs can only kill; they have no benevolent purpose.
Although we can cut up our dinner salad with a knife, we cannot prepare our
dinner with a nuclear bomb.
Where do we go from here?
The national
governments themselves cause the atrocities of war. Under existing
international law, national government leaders can continue to prepare for and
wage wars, especially internal conflicts. The veil of national sovereignty and
the weakness of international enforcement allow them to act aggressively.
National
governments could outlaw war and its preparations in their national
constitutions, like Japan (in Article 9) and Costa Rica (in Article 12) have
done. In those two countries, governmental leaders cannot weaponize the state
and commandeer armed forces. It’s unlikely, however, that many other nations,
and certainly not the permanent members of the United Nations “Security Council,”
would voluntarily reject war as a tool of national policy.
Nations
cannot or will not stop war. As Garry
Davis once shouted from the public balcony at the United Nations, “If the
nation-states won't stop war, then they should step aside and let us, the
people, create the institutions that will.” War becomes perpetual only if we
choose it as the principal mode of interaction during conflict.
We the people must create new
governmental institutions beyond the nation.
If we want
to have an effective compliance program to prevent the sale, transfer and use of
arms, some independent body or institution outside the nation-states is going
to have to take charge. In other words, we need a system in place that will
maintain the restrictions of illegality on the war preparation process.
A World Congress
would create common world law that outlaws violent force everywhere as well as
the sale, distribution and use of weapons. Aggression of war and violent conflict must be
made illegal. Just like shooting someone or fighting with someone in a local
setting can be considered assault and battery or murder, fighting or using
weapons between groups of people in different places around the world must also
be considered illegal. So no matter one’s location or whether one is wearing a
uniform, killing would be outlawed. Killing anywhere would be considered murder
everywhere.
A World Court
of Human Rights (WCHR) would adjudicate violations of the law, with a World
Marshals Service to apprehend violators. A WCHR will shed light on violations
by governments that oppress the many and maintain benefits for only a select
few, affirming that governments must be transparent and act in service to the
people. A WCHR will provide a legal and peaceful forum for victims to air their
grievances and to obtain justice against the sponsors of war. Everyone should be able to sue for the
violence they have faced.
Even if lawmakers and courts
establish the illegality of war, how will we protect ourselves from rogue
actors?
This is
what a volunteer peace or police force is for.
A World Peace/Police Guards Force would implement and enforce the law –
acting as roving ombudspeople to prevent conflicts and intervene in conflicts
before they become violent. World Peace Guards would provide mediation and
collaborative strategies and processes.
War is the biggest waster of human
and natural resources.
People in
the green movement must unite with people in the peace and collaborative
development movements to stop war and its preparations for the sake of humanity
and the earth. We need to work together to dismantle the structural violence
that has been built into the nation-state system. We need to alleviate the economic, political,
technological, and social factors of humiliation – the underlying inequalities
and oppression – that cause people to seek vengeance against and to hate,
oppress, and control others. As citizens of one world, we must fulfill human
and environmental needs, rights and duties. We need to eliminate the anarchy,
the lack of unified law, between nation-states that is the breeding ground of
war. World peace, as well as human and environmental sustainability, will
depend upon the advancement of common world law.