This paper addresses the question of whether International law related to human security is adequate to address modern challenges, I argue in the affirmative, albeit partially. While I believe that International law in this area can certainly be improved upon as law, in general, is a dynamic phenomenon, it would be erroneous to assert that the laws are not adequate to address modern challenges to a considerable extent. In support of my position, I aim to advance the perspective that in matters concerning international human security law, we must draw distinctions between ‘adequate/adequacy’ and ‘application.' Whereas 'adequate' means "sufficient for a specific need or requirement." On the other hand, 'application' means "an act of putting something to use." It is my view that though international law is generally sufficient to address modern challenges, actions taken by international actors to tackle human security issues are usually unpredictable. 'Law,' being an institutional fixture, is enacted to ensure predictability and uniformity, and international law should be no exception. However, international actors are generally inclined to think and act otherwise. It is one thing to develop laws, and it is an entirely different matter to apply them. In further support of my position, I also seek to present the view and necessary evidence that the application of international law related to human security is majorly dependent on State policy and not the adequacy or otherwise of the law.
Humanity's duty to protect human security interests in both conflict and non-conflict situations is deemed essential. Accordingly, the need for a comprehensive and inclusive International legal framework on human security is justified. In the wake of the security issues that we have been confronted with in the past and those that continue to threaten our concerted safety, deliberations surrounding the adequacy or otherwise of International law related to human security vis-à-vis modern challenges are inevitable.
Table of Contents
1. International Law Related to Human Security is Adequate to Address Modern Challenges
Objectives & Topics
This paper examines whether the existing framework of international law is sufficient to address modern human security challenges, arguing that while the laws are generally adequate, their practical application is often undermined by State policy and national interests. The analysis explores the gap between the normative strength of international legal provisions and the variable, often self-serving, implementation by international actors.
- The effectiveness of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and UN Security Council interventions.
- Legal complexities and moral implications surrounding "intervention by invitation" and the use of force.
- Challenges in governing emerging military technologies, specifically Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) or "killer robots."
- Regulatory constraints and the enforcement difficulties regarding the international arms trade.
- The adequacy of international refugee and migration law frameworks in the context of global displacement.
Excerpt from the Book
INTERNATIONAL LAW RELATED TO HUMAN SECURITY IS ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS MODERN CHALLENGES
Humanity's duty to protect human security interests in both conflict and non-conflict situations is deemed essential. Accordingly, the need for a comprehensive and inclusive International legal framework on human security is justified. In the wake of the security issues that we have been confronted with in the past and those that continue to threaten our concerted safety, deliberations surrounding the adequacy or otherwise of International law related to human security vis-à-vis modern challenges are inevitable. Regarding the actual question on whether International law related to human security is adequate to address modern challenges, I argue in the affirmative, albeit partially. While I believe that International law in this area can certainly be improved upon as law, in general, is a dynamic phenomenon, it would be erroneous to assert that the laws are not adequate to address modern challenges to a considerable extent.
In support of my position, I aim to advance the perspective that in matters concerning international human security law, we must draw distinctions between ‘adequate/adequacy’ and ‘application.' Whereas 'adequate' means "sufficient for a specific need or requirement." On the other hand, 'application' means "an act of putting something to use." It is my view that though international law is generally sufficient to address modern challenges, actions taken by international actors to tackle human security issues are usually unpredictable. 'Law,' being an institutional fixture, is enacted to ensure predictability and uniformity, and international law should be no exception. However, international actors are generally inclined to think and act otherwise. It is one thing to develop laws, and it is an entirely different matter to apply them. In further support of my position, I also seek to present the view and necessary evidence that the application of international law related to human security is majorly dependent on State policy and not the adequacy or otherwise of the law.
Summary of Chapters
1. International Law Related to Human Security is Adequate to Address Modern Challenges: This section establishes the author's core argument that international law is conceptually sufficient but practically hindered by state-centric policy choices and inconsistent application by international actors.
Keywords
International Law, Human Security, Responsibility to Protect, R2P, State Sovereignty, Use of Force, Intervention by Invitation, Autonomous Weapons Systems, Killer Robots, Arms Trade, International Refugee Law, Global Compact on Refugees, Crime of Aggression, Rome Statute, State Policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work regarding international law?
The author argues that international law regarding human security is fundamentally adequate to address modern challenges, but its effectiveness is often compromised by the unpredictable nature of state policy and the prioritization of national interests over humanitarian obligations.
What are the primary thematic areas explored in the text?
The text focuses on the R2P doctrine, the use of force, the regulation of autonomous weapons, the international arms trade, and the legal frameworks governing refugees and migration.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks whether international law related to human security is sufficient to address the complexities of modern security challenges.
What scientific methodology is utilized in this study?
The work employs a legal-analytical method, utilizing eight specific case studies and an examination of international treaties, conventions, and secondary legal literature to support its thesis.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body critically analyzes the institutional role of the UN Security Council, the legal standards for intervention, the challenges posed by new military technologies, and the implementation gaps in international humanitarian and refugee law.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include international law, state sovereignty, R2P, autonomous weapons systems, and the intersection of humanitarian ethics with state policy.
How does the author define the distinction between "adequate" and "application"?
"Adequate" is defined as being sufficient for a requirement, while "application" refers to the actual implementation or use of the law, which the author argues is the primary point of failure in the current system.
What is the author's stance on Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS)?
The author suggests that existing law is insufficient for the unique challenges of AWS and advocates for a specific treaty to address the ambiguities surrounding effective human control over these machines.
What role does state policy play in the enforcement of international laws?
According to the author, state policy reigns supreme, often relegating moral and legal obligations to the background when they conflict with a nation's economic interests, security, or desire for sovereignty.
What is the author's conclusion on the "crime of aggression"?
The author concludes that the current definition and jurisdictional limitations within the Rome Statute render the crime of aggression largely ineffective as a deterrent, necessitating urgent reform measures.
- Citation du texte
- Temiloluwa Lawal (Auteur), 2021, International law on human security in the 21st century, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1066324
