The Forbidden City - Beijing, China
In the second half of the 19th century, the International Arbitration and Peace Association movement in London proposed the establishment of an international court of arbitration and adjudication along with generalized disarmament. I explained this project in the text entitled "Guerre et paix – bas les armes" on the "lettresanticosti.ca" blog.
In 1899, the Hague Conference, which was to set up these institutions, only succeeded in obtaining the support of the then existing powers for a non-binding arbitration tribunal. Although disappointing, this timid step forward was better than none at all.
Today, this 120-year-old international tribunal continues to arbitrate numerous cases annually. It is made up of jurists of international reputation. Their expertise in the most complex situations and the jurisprudence developed since its creation make it an organization of great competence that the world should use. Those who join on a voluntary basis have understood that a decision, not always entirely satisfactory, is still better than an unresolved case, especially when it can degenerate into a destructive and costly war.
Of course, there are those who still believe that force can continue to resolve conflicts. Vladimir Putin is one of them. The human and material cost of his invasion of Ukraine illustrates this. The damage shows the disproportion between the supposed gains he envisioned and the gigantic costs of this barbaric violence. And as if that were not enough, this war comes at a time when humanity is threatened by catastrophic climate changes and a pandemic still far from being under control after more than 3 years.
Can we, this time, learn from it and improve the future? We will have to if we want to sustain life on our planet. And one of the improvements, although insufficient, could come from this more than century-old idea of compulsory arbitration and adjudication.
Utopian? Probably in part, but let's not downplay how far we've come. It all depends on how much space we now want to cover. We could, for example, tackle only one element of the causes of violent conflicts in the world, the most frequent: territorial division.
It could be required by the UN that each country or region claiming a change of territory or a separation from its current country must do so by submitting a complete and argued case to the international arbitration tribunal. It should be remembered that this body is legal and not political in nature and does not rely on force, but on law. And let us also remember that it is quite different from the international criminal court which seeks to find and punish guilty parties.
The international arbitration tribunal instead seeks to find solutions.
This kind of debate could start with mediation. For example, instead of invading Crimea in 2014, Russia could have registered its territorial claim. It had good arguments in this matter since this territory had been part of Russia until the mid-1950s, when the then-Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev, decided to attach it to Ukraine for practical reasons. This peninsula was indeed attached by a land link with Ukraine in the north, while in the east, it was separated from Russia by a strait.
This linking to Ukraine would certainly not have happened if Russia had foreseen the collapse of the USSR, followed by Ukraine's independence; it would have kept this strategic site under its authority. Hence its claim.
This is just one of many examples of disagreements that if left unchecked can escalate into war. The most famous example of this is the island of Taiwan. Anti-communist forces took refuge there after the victory of the communist leader Mao Zedong in 1949 and have since been protected by the United States.
China considers it a rebel province within its territory. However, the people of Taiwan are opposed to reunification, which would result in their being subjected to the dictatorship of China's autocratic political regime, even though they are currently part of the liberal democracies.
The list of these disputes is extensive, but many of them could be resolved quickly and peacefully through this method of arbitration and adjudication.
Then, bit by bit, as the number of unresolved cases diminishes and jurisprudence develops, we would come to a decrease in international tensions regarding this issue.
There would actually be 3 situations: the first, easy cases where both countries or territories accept the international arbitration decision and comply with its eventual ruling, regardless of what it is.
The second situation, not so easy, concerns the case where one of the parties wishes and accepts this arbitration, but the other does not. There is nothing to prevent the international community from requesting that the arbitration take place anyway; the result would at least shed some judicial perspective on the case. The result might make the reluctant party bend. Otherwise, this unresolved issue would neither be a step forward nor a step back; it would simply remain in limbo until a more suitable opportunity to resolve it comes along.
Finally, the third situation, both parties refuse international arbitration. If the situation on the ground is peaceful, then the international community could allow time to pass, but if not, there should be nothing to prevent the request for a legal opinion from being heard at the international tribunal, even if the parties do not attend.
In any case, any recourse to violence should be condemned by international institutions if this arbitration process has not been used to its fullest extent.
Would this system have convinced Vladimir Putin against entering the war against Ukraine? Perhaps not, but he could not complain today that most countries in the world condemn his barbaric behaviour. One thing is certain: countries that are thinking of using violence against their neighbours will think twice before attempting such an invasion, given the difficulties Russia faces against strong Ukrainian resistance and given the insufficient, but nonetheless tangible, military support from the international community. The use of an independent third party to decide on a course of action to resolve tensions between warring groups of humans is a way in which history is riddled.
All free countries have an independent justice system that is called upon to adjudicate disputes on an ongoing basis. These judgments have force of law in these countries and prevent society from sliding into violence and chaos.
The modern challenge is to transpose this system of arbitration at the international level to eradicate violence and chaos.
The task is not insurmountable. It will take time to achieve, but the result, while imperfect, is far better than the current anarchy, and deserves to be pursued with all the energy one can muster.
We cannot pretend that international arbitration would be sufficient to curb conflicts, but let's remember that it is one of the most efficient means available to deal with them. The elephant in the room, however, remains the orgy of weapons the world has at its disposal to destroy itself. Of course, this issue cannot be dodged indefinitely.
Comentários