International law: a liberal view

Distinguishing the theory of realism from liberalism will help one to understand how international law is connected to international relations. Both theories give two different explanations of how state actors behave. One is inclusive of non-state actors while the other is not.

Elman (2009) states that the realist tradition was a response to the dominant liberal tradition of international politics. Classical realists believe that because human beings are egoistic, we desire for more power. The more power we have, then we have a better opportunity of acquiring more resources which are scarce. Also, we can influence what happens around us if we possess a measurable amount of power.

A state's interest could be to have control over a certain geographical territory in the ocean which is important for international trade and has mineral resources. To acquire this territory, the state must acquire a measurable amount of power in order to wrestle with other surrounding states who might have an interest in that territory as well. This makes conflict unavoidable.

According to Burchill (2005), liberals will argue that we can avoid conflict by referring to principles and norms of international law and practice to help us address the issue. The Law of the Seas in particular defines the territorial jurisdiction of a particular state. The presence of an arbitrator like the international court of arbitration will help maintain some form of peace.

The liberal idea of respecting the 'rule of law' did not work in the case of China versus the Philippines. When the ruling was made against China's 'historical rights' claim in the South China sea, Beijing argued strongly that they "neither accepts nor recognises" the ruling.

In the case of a non-state actor, the people smuggling syndicates that operate out of Indonesia have no respect for international law. The people smugglers are there to make money, that is their ultimate interest. They have no regards for the lives of those they smuggle.

The people smuggling syndicates and individuals who are part of the syndicates are not sovereign states. But they behave in a similar manner to states by pursuing their interest. That is the flawed nature of humanity according to realists.

This confirms Burchill's (2005) citation of the statement made by Rawls, that the guidelines and principal basis for establishing harmonious relations between liberal and non-liberal peoples under a common 'Law of Peoples', takes liberal international theory in a more sophisticated direction because it explicitly acknowledge the need for utopian thought to be realistic.

Liberals think that international law or the 'Law of Peoples' and institutions created to administer the law will influence the behaviour of states. This has happened in some instances but the case of China and the Philippines shows that the law was ineffective.

They thought international law would have a similar effect on states in the international system like it has on human beings in the domestic system. The only difference is that, in the domestic system we have a central authority which wields power, that is different to the anarchic nature of the international system. 

Unlike human beings, states are sovereign. This makes it very difficult for one state or a non-state actor to tell a state what to do and what no to do. The notion of sovereignty makes a particular state independent.

PNG or any other state in the international system cannot tell Australia to remove its policy on border security and migration. We cannot tell Australia to just settle the human beings on Manus Island who are refugees in Australia, instead of sending them to the US. 

The United Nations as a liberal creation is an important intergovernmental organization. Since there is no unified system of sanctions in international law as stated by Shaw (2008), the Security Council imposes sanctions if they determine that a particular state poses a threat to peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. 

Shaw (2008, p.4) states that: "coercive action within the framework of the UN is rare because it requires co-ordination amongst the five permanent members of the Security Council and this obviously needs an issue not regarded by any of the great powers as a threat to their vital interest."

Apart from the Security Council, we have other institutions that work to make sure states behave in accordance to the principles and norms of international law. Therefore, the liberal view is in a way contributing to a stable international order.

In the case of Australia's border security, PNG has demonstrated its respect for international law by helping Australia to combat the transnational issue of human smuggling. As a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its related 1967 Protocol, we have removed our 7 reservations, amended our domestic laws, and created the National Refugee Policy to help resettle refugees.

We hope that by adhering to international law, we will help human beings who are victims of systematic violence and various forms of abuse in their respective countries find a peaceful home. We hope that they will contribute meaningfully to our development if they decide to settle in PNG.  

However, we should not disregard the realist argument that states will still act in their best interest. They will not adhere to principles and norms of international law if it impedes their interest. Moreover, that is the Machiavellian logic of the ends justify the means. 

References

Burchill, S. (2005). Liberalism. In S. Burchill et al, Theories of international relations (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Elman, C. (2007). Realism. In M. Griffiths (Ed.), International relations theory for the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.

  Shaw, M. N. (2009). International Law (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.