International Community’s Response to Nuclear Proliferation
Since the beginning of the nuclear age, many individuals have speculated about the effect of atomic debates on world politics. Most scholars have debated the issue of nuclear weapons and the threat it poses to the international community. This is because nuclear weapons are the most potent weapons that can destroy a significant part of most Metropolitan areas and end the lives of millions of individuals. A nuclear war between two superpowers, such as the United States and Russia, could end all life on Earth if peace did not exist internationally. During the Cold War era, many individuals feared another nuclear war could emerge following the disastrous atomic bomb that fell on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki regions of Japan, destroying many people’s lives. This has made the subject of proliferation in the international community a point of much attention, which attracts the debate between proliferation optimists and pessimists. This paper explores some measures the international community takes on nuclear proliferation using the perspectives of nuclear proliferation optimists and pessimists.
One of the vital pillars in the arguments of nuclear proliferation optimists is from the Cold War debates on nuclear strategy. Some of these pillars include the effect of nuclear weapons on enemies’ territories. Notably, a small nuclear arsenal can destroy a large portion of an enemy’s territory within minutes. Still, the impact has devastating effects on the lives of many individuals, which can even cause genetic mutations in future generations. Nuclear proliferation optimists assert that the disastrous effects of nuclear war will lead to international peace and that such conflict among nations can never be fought again (Suzuki, 2015). Many scholars investigated the effects of the first use of nuclear arsenals on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and whether the impact of such nuclear war led to international security and peace. Nuclear proliferation optimists believe that nuclear weapons are an absolute measure that countries can take to terrify their enemies, causing permanent and long-lasting peace among nations. One of the nuclear proliferation optimists, Jacob Viner, argued that nuclear weapons could limit the capabilities of a more powerful nation or adversary and that the destructive nature of nuclear weapons can induce caution among international leaders to promote peace among countries. Still, Viner further argued that superpowers could result in using nuclear bombs if the circumstances of resolving conflicts peacefully among different nations fail. According to nuclear proliferation optimists, this measure can lead to long-lasting peace and prevention of future conflicts.
In contrast, nuclear proliferation pessimists reject the argument that nuclear weapons are instrumental in promoting international peace. Albert Wohlstetter, an American Strategist in the Department of Defense asserted that nuclear weapons are not invulnerable. This argument counters the proliferation optimists’ belief that nuclear weapons are invulnerable (Suzuki, 2015). Wohlstetter argued that the balance of terror is delicate in the nuclear war among nations. This means the United States forces could be vulnerable if the Russians launched their nuclear weapons first. The such vulnerability could cause Moscow to initiate a nuclear war. Nuclear proliferation pessimists such as Wohlstetter believed nuclear weapons were only instrumental in causing chaos and destruction and could not lead to peace (Bressler, 2021). Nuclear proliferation pessimists built their pillar on the fact that nuclear war would counterforce war leading to significant loss of lives and economic losses among nations. Nuclear proliferation would allow other nations to seek to promote their self-interests by promoting the spread of nuclear weapons only in their war alliances. For example, the United States would only seek to promote nuclear weapons among the nations within the NATO alliance to protect its interests. Therefore, nuclear proliferation pessimists believe that nuclear weapons can initiate nuclear terrorism and that nuclear weapons have little effect on promoting international diplomacy worldwide because the world’s history has always been the same even before the invention of nuclear weapons.
Due to the current debates between nuclear proliferation optimists and pessimists, one of the most effective solutions for the international community to deal with nuclear proliferation is the abolition of nuclear arms. Socialists and liberals believe that the presence of nuclear weapons causes more destruction and does not promote international peace—the international community’s solution is to reduce the political utility of nuclear weapons against their enemies. The international community is mandated to change public perception and military and political leaders on the dangers of using nuclear weapons in times of promoting international security. The public must realize that nuclear weapons have no defensive value and only promote catastrophes that international organizations cannot prevent (Cimbala, 2017). Still, the international community can apply conservative measures such as confidence building and arms control, strengthening stability dimensions such as arms race and deterrence. The progressive nature of various technological and political conditions cannot allow the elimination of nuclear weapons among superpowers (Cimbala, 2017). Therefore, the international community can only take appropriate action to remedy political conditions that can lead to an outbreak of war, such as promoting human rights and implementing peace treaties among nations.
Conclusively, the international community has always been in a constant debate between nuclear proliferation optimists and pessimists. On the one hand, nuclear proliferation optimists believe nuclear weapons strategically promote global peace. They rely on the fact that nuclear weapons have devastating effects and can induce fear among political leaders in every country to promote peace with other countries. On the other hand, nuclear proliferation pessimists argue that nuclear weapons are instrumental in promoting endless war, loss of lives and adverse economic losses. Still, they believe that some nations can use nuclear weapons to promote their self-interests in other countries. Nuclear proliferation pessimists are against the production of nuclear weapons because they are familiar with the retaliation nature of different countries if there is an outbreak of nuclear war. The international community can only utilize two measures in responding to nuclear proliferation: abolition and conservative measures. Therefore, the international community can respond to nuclear proliferation by educating the masses on the dangers of nuclear weapons and eliminating political conditions that could lead to nations getting involved in a nuclear war.
International Criminal Court and Human Rights
The primary role of the International Criminal Court is to deter and prevent individuals across the globe from violating international law. In this case, the Court is mandated to promote international justice globally by prosecuting and investigating individuals who have committed significant crimes against humanity, such as war and genocide. Despite its potential to promote international justice, many individuals question the International Criminal Court’s ability to protect against the violation of human rights. Many individuals believe that the Court’s establishment has the power to protect human rights by investigating and prosecuting offenders of international law. On the other hand, other individuals question the Court’s legitimacy in protecting individuals globally from human rights violations. Few scholars have scrutinized this subject and investigated whether the Court is powerful enough to formulate policies protecting individuals from human rights violations (Appel, 2016). This paper explores the International Criminal Court’s role in protecting individuals’ human rights through its policies and some of the Court’s limitations on preventing the violation of human rights.
In investigating whether the ICC can prevent human rights violations across the globe, it is essential to focus on the leaders of each government and their objectives. Leaders of every government in the world prioritize international and domestic support. Most scholars assert that leaders prioritize their reputation as they serve their term in office (Appel, 2016). However, leaders are primary actors in human rights violations when the utility of committing atrocities against their citizens is more significant than other policy alternatives they have in their agendas. The ICC’s involvement in country leaders means that the Court can prevent leaders from violating human rights by inflicting costs on them. The cost infliction can lower the leaders’ payoffs, preventing them from committing more human rights violations. When leaders serve their term in office, they also prioritize gaining an international reputation, which helps their countries obtain economic benefits from international organizations. The ICC can prevent such leaders from obtaining economic assistance from other countries if they are charged with crimes against humanity. Many scholars argue that the ICC cannot deter leaders from violating human rights because the Court lacks law enforcement resources to punish and arrest such leaders (Appel, 2016). This is essential because it shows that the ICC has other potential ways of promoting human rights internationally. From this logic, the ICC can prevent human rights violations from leaders by inflicting costs such as international audience costs, domestic costs, and prosecution costs.
The primary objective of the ICC is to protect and promote international law among countries worldwide to enhance international cooperation. International law supported by the ICC implements human rights treaties that establish moral standards that every nation worldwide is supposed to abide by. When the ICC establishes human rights treaties, it helps domestic actors not to support regimes that repress the rights of their citizens through anarchy and dictatorship. This means that the ICC can directly be involved in the domestic support of leaders in every country who continue to suppress human rights and this can threaten their political survival in office (Appel, 2016). Still, the human rights treaties implemented by the ICC offer guidelines and policies on the fundamental human rights that countries need to protect in promoting social, political and economic development. The ICC can help various governments by signalling domestic actors of violating human rights and international law. This is because various media houses broadcast the Court cases, which can ruin a government’s international reputation. Therefore, governments can respect human rights treaties through obedience to international law and ICC policies.
One of the outbreaks of human rights violations is the discrimination of other individuals because of their race, gender, religion and ethnicity. The ICC can play a significant role internationally in ensuring that domestic leaders and citizens prevent these violations. In international trials, one of the policies the Court can undertake is the respect intersectionality, which can prevent the Court and other international leaders from targeting individuals because of their overlapping identities (Maučec, 2021). However, the Court’s most significant potential in protecting the rights of minorities lies in its innovative and creative development and interpretation of international law. The Court can recognize and address intersectionality issues where a violation of human rights resulted from discrimination of individuals due to their racial and religious differences. Intersectionality issues have become one of the limitations of the ICC because the Court’s judges can provide harsh judgements against violators of human rights due to their race and ethnicity. One of the policies the Court can use to improve its capacity to protect human rights is to improve the status of minorities in every nation. This can be done by enhancing their protection level through the intersectional analysis of clarifying, interpreting and developing international law (Maučec, 2021). For instance, the Court has distinguished every type of discrimination from each another, such as on the grounds of politics, race and religion, to avoid criticism in making international criminal law. This will help address the root causes of such human rights violations and create an effective remedy for the adverse consequences.
Conclusively, the International Criminal Court plays a significant role in protecting the human rights of individuals globally. As evident from the facts above, one of the primary violators of human rights in every nation is the government leaders who prioritize their self-interests above their citizens’ rights. The ICC can directly get involved in the domestic affairs of every nation to ensure that government leaders abide by the policies of international law. Although the ICC may lack the resources to punish and arrest perpetrators who abuse human rights, they may inflict costs on such leaders, which limits their political survival in their countries. Still, the Court struggles with intersectionality issues that limit its capability to protect the rights of individuals. The Court can inflict harsh costs or sentences on individuals based on their racial, political and religious differences. One of the policies the Court can implement is through a careful intersectionality analysis when making international laws. This is beneficial in addressing the root causes of discrimination, which will issue fair judgements against perpetrators of human rights. For this reason, much research is necessary to help individuals understand the effectiveness of the ICC in preventing human rights violations such as civilian targeting, sexual violence and recruitment of children in their military.
Addressing International Terrorism
Following the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the attacks provoked a primary concern about the international community’s security. The United States was the primary discussion point on the discourses surrounding terrorism, including the public, the media and political influences. The international community became more focused on the terrorist threats in the United States and other parts of the world. Most United States citizens prioritized more on their safety from areas which were hotbeds of terror attacks from international actors. Many scholars assert that international terrorism poses a significant threat to natural disasters, war, and pandemics on millions of individuals’ values, security and lives worldwide (Silva et al., 2019). Such assertions have rapidly led the international community to transform international security through laws, policies and initiatives. This paper addresses the various policy options the international community can use to mitigate international security, such as foreign aid policy.
After the 9/11 attacks in the United States, one of the policy options available for counterterrorism was the foreign aid policy. This is because many individuals believe that poverty breeds terrorism across all nations globally. Foreign aid can effectively aid countries by promoting socioeconomic development. However, little support and analysis exist that shows terrorism are more prevalent in third-world countries. Scholars also argue that terrorism can also originate from middle-income and wealthy individuals in developed and developing countries (Savun & Tirone, 2017). Such arguments from various scholars open the debate on what may cause some individuals to terrorize the rest of the public. For this reason, it is essential to note the benefits of foreign aid in counterterrorism. Research suggests that foreign aid assists a nation to promote health and education, effectively reducing the outbreak of terrorism (Savun & Tirone, 2017). Transnational and domestic forms of terrorism are the most common, affecting any nation’s political, social and economic progress. When one nation donates foreign aid to another nation, it leads to the nation receiving aid to make improvements in its political conditions, which helps mitigate terrorist activity and threats in that particular nation.
Another effective policy option in combating terrorism is the democracy policy program. This policy has been on the rise since the 1990s. The United States has been the primary contributor of democracy programs to the international community, and this fosters a democratic opening to countries that have other forms of government such as anarchy. Fostering democratic programs in the United States and other parts of the world has helped other countries with economic assistance that uplifts such countries economically and politically in fighting terrorism (Savun & Tirone, 2017). One of the democracy assistance programs is the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which assists in the democratization of other countries and reduces their terrorism appeal through community programs that bring people together in addressing social problems. For instance, the USAID program help individuals in the early 2000s in conflict mitigation in Chad and created stabilization programs in the community, promoting peace among Herders and Nomads in that region (Savun & Tirone, 2017). Still, the democratic assistance policy has ensured that a country affected by terrorism strengthens its judicial institutions to administer appropriate justice against terrorists. When citizens of a particular country have confidence in their legal system, it can help them resolve disputes and other crimes rather than resolve terrorism and violence. Therefore, the international community can use the democracy assistance policy to counter terrorism in countries that experience political instability and bad governance.
Furthermore, one of the other policies the international community can use in fighting terrorism is the implementation of migration policies. This policy defines how countries should regulate international migration to prevent the illegal entry of individuals into other countries. This approach helps the international community curb terrorism threats that foreigners cause. The international community has the mandate to reevaluate its immigration laws due to the international security concerns caused by terrorism. Many scholars assert that the growing wave of terrorism is primarily attributed to international immigration (Bove et al., 2020). After the 9/11 attacks in the United States, most countries strengthened their borders to enhance security and prevent the entry of illegal immigrants believed to be terrorists. For instance, the Paris attacks that occurred in 2015 caused countries from Slovenia and Sweden to strengthen their borders by screening new immigrants due to fear of terrorism (Bove et al., 2020). Therefore, the formulation and reevaluation of immigration policies have helped many countries internationally curb the spread of terrorism.
Conclusively, terrorism has become a primary focus of security and has contributed to the international community making other policies that help limit terrorism growth. Various policies that effectively counter terrorism include the foreign aid policy, democratic assistance policy, and immigration policy. One of the most effective policies is the foreign aid policy because countries affected by terrorism can receive international assistance, strengthening their socioeconomic development. Foreign aid can help these countries strengthen their government institutions to have a solid legal framework that helps fight terrorism and prosecute perpetrators. Still, the immigration policy can effectively curb terrorism because countries can strengthen their borders by screening immigrants to prevent the illegal entry of terrorists into a country’s jurisdiction. Further research is essential in investigating if countries give foreign aid to other countries for their self-interest or international security purposes.
References
Appel, B. J. (2016). In the shadow of the International Criminal Court. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002716639101
Bove, V., Böhmelt, T., & Nussio, E. (2020). Terrorism abroad and migration policies at home. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(2), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1729227
Bressler, D. (2021, October 28). Has the nuclear nonproliferation treaty limited the spread of nuclear weapons? Evaluating the arguments. Nuclear Network. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://nuclearnetwork.csis.org/has-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-treaty-limited-the-spread-of-nuclear-weapons-evaluating-the-arguments/
Cimbala, S. J. (2017). Nuclear Proliferation in the Twenty-First Century: Realism, Rationality, or Uncertainty? Strategic Studies Quarterly, 129–146.
Maučec, G. (2021). Law development by the International Criminal Court as a way to enhance the protection of minorities—the case for intersectional consideration of mass atrocities. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 12(1), 42–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idaa029
Savun, B., & Tirone, D. C. (2017). Foreign aid as a counterterrorism tool. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(8), 1607–1635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717704952
Silva, J. R., Duran, C., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2019). Addressing the myths of terrorism in America. International Criminal Justice Review, 30(3), 302–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567719833139
Suzuki, A. (2015). Is more better or worse? New Empirics on nuclear proliferation and interstate conflict by random forests. Research & Politics, 2(2), 205316801558962. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015589625
write