Law and Morality

The close and inseparable ties between law and morality date back to the time of Greek philosophers.  The dilemma following its conflicting principles can be identified in the Greek tragedy 'Antigone', in which we realize that ones morals do not always collaborate with the law. However a clear distinction between the two came about in the Hart-Devlin debate following the publishing of the Wolfenden report of 1957, which sought to legalize prostitution and homosexuality on the basis that it wasn't the law's business on what an individual's personal morals were. Therefore they were to be decriminalized on the basis of:

1. Freedom of choice
2. Privacy of morality

However after the publication of this report, professor H.L.A Hart and Lord Devlin who both had very different and contradicting opinions on the relationship between law and morality, initiated a debate in pieces of writing which subsequently came to be called the Hart-Devlin debate.

Lord Devlin took a very conservative stance stating that law and morality were one and the same. He believed that establishing a distinction between the two was the "paved toad to tranny. " He reiterated that shared morality was absolutely essential for the preservation of society and that nothing was off limits to the law. He opined that if there was no common morality, moral bonds loosened and society would disintegrate, imploding rather than succumbing to external pressures. Therefore while he believed that privacy should be respected, he concluded that the law had the right to interfere in the personal lives of people to protect morality and society.

Professor Hart on the other hand believed that law and morality should exist independent of each other and opined that if one's actions did not harm society, they should be allowed to do as they pleased, reiterating John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle' which states that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He pointed out that no-one really knew what was "right" or "wrong" and therefore no-one should be allowed to enforce their morals on other people. He believed that this would adversely affect pluralism and diversity and would result in populism, as the the powerful would be the ones dictating the behaviour of society. Furthermore since morals constantly evolved, he pointed out that it would be un-practical to constantly amend laws to keep up with morality.

Hart takes a very individualistic stance which is less invasive into the private's live's of people, which is why this writer believes that Hart's idea of how law should work, despite clashing with religion and culture, allows people of society to develop and coexist in harmony. By imposing one's morals on another it restricts freedom and is a tyranny of those in power. However at the same time this writer concedes that Lord Devlin's approach protects religions, cultures and societies.

In conclusion it can be stated that the relationship between law and morality is a very close one, and at times is very difficult to distinguish between the two as each cannot exist without the other.

Image: http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/learn/humanist-morality/

Bangladesh’s Multilateral Efforts in Combating Terrorism

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the definition of terrorism is “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

And in this manner the nation of Bangladesh in no stranger to terrorism both inside and outside her borders, In 2005 bombs were detonated simultaneously in 63 of Bangladesh’s 64 provinces and in 2004 an attack was made on the then former prime minister Sheikh Hasina while she conducted a rally in Dhaka. It resulted in the death of 21 of her party supporters, including party women’s secretary, Ivy Rahman. Many other attacks have also been made by radical Islam parties as well as leftist parties in Bangladesh (most notably the Left Wing Extremists) that have killed many people over the years.

Currently terrorism in is not as significant in Bangladesh as it is in her neighboring countries, however it does not mean that the country goes unscathed. Terrorism is a serious impediment to the national growth and development, which has become an almost vital process in Bangladesh due to the bleak economic situation the country faces. Terrorism also creates drifts and disunion between the members of society, most notably among the minority groups; furthermore it adversely affects the entire South Asian region in all aspects. Therefore the government of Bangladesh realizing that terrorism being a serious threat not only to the nation itself, but also to both regional peace and stability, have taken many steps to combat and prevent it. With regard to information sharing among member nations of SAARC, the United Nations Counter Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (UNCTED) in association with the government of Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute organized a workshop that brought together working level law enforcement experts of the South Asian region as well as SAARC observer nations, where they discussed and exchanged  information on the latest available technologies and techniques of investigation etc. these discussions were facilitated by the INTERPOL, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC), the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the government of Australia. In a meeting held In New Delhi, both the Indian and Bangladeshi governments, emphasized on the importance of sustained cooperation and suggested a real time exchange of information between its security agencies, in addition to the already existing system of information sharing between the BSF and BDR. Also meetings between the two governments were held in Dhaka on several occasions, where they vowed to tackle cross border terrorism, and to eliminate any terrorism within their respective countries against the other etc. They also sought to develop a highly efficient system for information sharing between the two nations so as to successfully combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

Reiterating the thoughts of home minister, Sahara Khatun, who emphasized the importance of a mutual sincerity in commitment to engage in regional cooperation so as to successfully and completely combat terrorism; it is crucial that all member and observer nations of SAARC realize that the best and only way to eliminate any and all forms of terrorism in the south Asian region is through cooperation. In sharing information between member nations we not only open many doors to a future free of violence, but we enable ourselves to share better and improved relations with each other, thereby ensuring a future filled with peace and prosperity for  the entire region. 

photo source: http://www.corbisimages.com/

A Review of the US Invasion of Iraq (2003)

The war on terror has been underway for quite some time, in fact it’s been eleven long years since the Al Qaeda brought the Twin Towers and through that the entire US crashing down to its knees. Under this campaign initiated under the Bush administration many people have died, been captured and interrogated.  Even whilst Osama Bin Laden is now proclaimed dead by the US government, terrorism is still very much alive and the threat hangs ominously in the background of the international arena.

One of the most famous cases under the ‘war against terror’ is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which to this day remains to be a controversy in the eyes of many people. The foundation of the entire mission titled ‘Operation Iraqi freedom’ lay on two speculations, one being Iraq’s alleged possession of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and the other being Saddam Hussein’s alleged connection in funding and assisting the Al Qaeda. This mission saw the involvement of countries such as the US, the UK, Australia, Spain and Poland, who all supplied troops for the invasion which was carried out from 19^th march to the 9^th April 2003. While President George Bush received a significant amount of support for this operation within the country, he also faced much opposition to it. Most notably from the UNSC and countries such as New Zealand, France, Italy, Germany and Canada, all long time allies of the US, who  urged the US government to use a more diplomatic approach to the problem.

The issue behind this fiasco is the legality of the invasion. The question remains, was it legal for the US to invade Iraq or not? To comprehensively answer this question it is necessary for us to start at the very roots, which is why an examination of the US constitution now becomes necessary. Accordingly  article 6 of the constitution states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land’ which basically means that any treaty signed and ratified by the US, shall become a supreme law of the land, not subject to violation. Due to this clause USA is legally bound to enshrine the provisions of all treaties it signs and ratifies, which in this sense makes the UN a body to which the US must conform to ( as the US has signed and ratified the UN charter). Therefore understandably, to go against the charter would be to go against America itself.

In fully analyzing every facet of this issue, a peek into the UN charter is also necessary. The UN charter clearly states that the only two instances when waging war is accepted is in the cases of:

1.  Self defense

2. When authorization to wage war is received from the UNSC

Accordingly the US invasion of Iraq would only have been legal if one or both of the above requirements were fulfilled.

In analyzing the first requirement, the question is if Iraq really and seriously posed a threat of imminent danger and harm to the US and its citizens. Pre-emptive defensive strikes is something somewhat different form this, as self defense is a counter measure, an act which is done only after something has been done against a party or in this case, the country in question. Now while it seems as if the US genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein aided the Al Qaeda and that Iraq intended on using these WMDs and provided countless accounts of evidence and intelligence supporting this claim, evidence points to the contrary. Former chief counter terrorism adviser to the National Security Council, Richard Clarke along with many other people believed that it had been George Bush’s intent to invade Iraq all along. The reasons as to why he would want to do this, is a mystery to none. To control the Iraqi oil fields, which happen to be the third largest in the world, would be a prize beyond any measure for any country. Furthermore by being in control of Iraq, USA would be able to set up a significant number of military bases in the country, allowing the US government to retain a dominant position in the country and also play an important role in shaping the domestic and foreign policies of neighboring countries as well. 
Therefore it can be clearly concluded that behind the talk of ending terrorism and bringing about international law and order in Iraq, there was most definitely an ulterior motive behind the invasion.

As mentioned before the mission was staged on two grounds, Iraq’s possession of WMDs and Saddam Hussein’s active role in supporting the Al Qaeda. To many in America it seemed that that the Bush administration was doing the right thing by invading Iraq, he was ridding the world of imminent danger and destruction. It would then come as a surprise to many when the invading forces and chief military personnel found neither trace of nuclear weaponry in Iraq nor any connection between Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda. These were admitted in a report released by the CIA in 2005. Therefore when analyzing this in the scope of self defense, which is an accepted ground for waging war in the UN charter, this rationalization is inapplicable, thereby making this invasion illegal on the grounds of self defense.

Moving onto the second requirement, which is the authorization from the UNSC to wage war, it is much more straightforward and simple to evaluate the invasion on these grounds. As George Bush failed to convince the UNSC of his beliefs, USA did not receive authorization from the Security Council to carry out the invasion, thereby making the invasion illegal on the second count as well. Therefore it can be concretely stated that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in fact illegal, as it went against the UN charter and by violating this charter, officials of the highest level in America had unknowingly violated their own constitution too. Blinded by ambition and dishonest motives and convinced they were doing the right thing; the US government became law breakers of the highest order, as the constitution is in fact the supreme law of the land.

This war not only resulted in thousand of unnecessary deaths but also led to the further destabilization of the Middle East.  Many people also believed that the invasion would only result in the reinvigoration of terrorist efforts against the US and further weaken its relationships with other Arab countries. The invasion clearly was gross error on the part of the US government, nothing had been accomplished and it made the international community question the motives of the US government. While this served as a bitter lesson to the US, it also showed us that nothing is what it seems, there’s always a motive behind everything and most importantly that the truth is never the easiest thing to decipher.

photo source: http://www.corbisimages.com/

Main Causes of the Second World War and its Results

The Second World War which occurred between the periods of 1939-1945, was one of the most bloodiest and gruesome wars our world has had to face. It was a war characterized by vast geographical expanse, mass genocide, the usage of weapons of mass destruction, struggles for power between two power blocs (much like the First World War) and the deaths and destruction of millions of people and cities. This war, which left in its aftermath a battle for supreme dominance between the United States of America (USA) and the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), began directly as result of Germany’s invasion of Poland led by Adolf Hitler. However the decision to initiate a second war so soon after the first was propelled by a number of reasons.

An  important motivator behind the German initiation of war, was the anger and resentment they felt as a result of the treaty of Versailles.  This treaty, in German opinion, subjected the German government and their country to acute humiliation and hardship, while also being brokered on extremely unfair and unpractical terms and conditions. This led to a national mindset of being an ill treated and victimized nation, which later probably became a rationalization for waging war. Furthermore The League of Nations, as result of being inherently flawed in its conception for a multitude of reasons, was unable to effectively carry out its functions or solve any disputes that arose after it came in to existence (see the issue of Mancuria and Abyssinia). This led Hitler to develop a very bold attitude allowing him to openly defy the Versailles treaty. By extending all three arms of the military, he clearly and openly contradicted the treaty in one of its most important areas, right under the noses of the world powers. On the other hand, German  allies such as Japan and Italy were becoming aggressive both in terms of national and foreign policy. In Italy, Mussolini’s fascist party was advocating massive change in the country and were becoming increasingly hostile towards its more democratic neighbors. This could be seen in Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia in 1935 as Mussolini desired a fasicist-Roman empire in Africa and the Mediterranean region. In Japan, emperor Hirohito wanted a Niponese empire in the Pacific region moving up to Australia and China.     

   




 During this time it has been noted that the democratic nations such as France and Britain played very passive roles and took a lenient approach with Germany. They turned a blind eye to Hitler’s actions which allowed him to acquire both Lebensraun (living space) and  Autarky (economic independence) which were both forbidden by the treaty of Versailles. Britain especially followed a policy of appeasement under Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister during this time. Despite protests from Churchill, Chamberlain naively believed that Hitler merely sought to unite German speaking people and continued his acts of appeasement towards Germany, a gross misjudgment on his part.                          

The remilitarization of Rhineland was also another cause of war, as it infringed the clauses of both, the treaty of Versailles and the Locarno pact. The Rome Berlin axis of 1926 united the Triumvirate of Germany, Italy and Japan and divided countries into the two blocs of power, namely the ‘allied’ and ‘axis’ powers. German occupation of Czechoslovakia was another causing agent as it was in contrary to the Munich Agreement and it saw to the end of the Britain’s policy of appeasement. Another cause was the German defiance of the treaty of St. Germain, when they invaded Sudetenland and united with Austria (Anschluss). The immediate cause for war however was the German invasion of Poland on the first of September 1939.

 This war which lasted for six years brought about many results to a new world, raised from the dust and ashes of yet another bloody and vicious war.One of the main outcomes of the war as stated before was the emergence of two super powers vying for a position of supreme dominance through yet another war. The USA and the then USSR, both emerged as the forerunners of two distinctly different ideological camps, one for communism and the other for capitalism and democracy. As a result of this war, these two countries unlike many others did not crumble or weaken but emerged victorious and powerful.

Another important outcome was the emergence of the United Nations Organization (UN) replacing the failed League of Nations. The UN was established to make up for the failure of the League of Nations and also to be a protector of world peace, a body not leaving any room for another world war. Apart from this the IMT (International Military Tribunal) was established in order to proceed with the Nuremberg trials, which tried the remaining offenders of the Nazi army. This set a standard for the protocol to be followed when trying war crime offenders in the future. Also having seen the destruction they could cause following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War, a nuclear age began and as many countries sought to develop nuclear arms as a part of their defense programs. Nuclear weapons were also developed as means of political intimidation and influence, especially in the cases of America and the U.S.S.R.  

Also at the end of the war, a slightly revolutionary social movement emerged as a result of the new position of women in society. As men were conscripted into the army there were many vacancies left behind in the cities and it was women who took up these jobs. Pretty soon a substantial portion of the working population consisted of women, a very progressive change in those times. Women emancipation was a social movement which emerged as a result of all this and it is one that continues to this day and plays a very important, if not crucial, role in government policies. 



Furthermore by the end of the war the system of European dominance in the global sphere came to an end. Countries such as Britain, Spain and France, which were major stakeholders in the global arena were made insignificant by the end of the war. These countries which were all industrially superior prior to the war, saw their places being replace by other countries especially by the USA whose industrial capacity was enhanced. As a result of this, USA possessed one of the most developed economies in the world during the latter part of the century.

In conclusion, the Second World War which was brought about as a result of a multitude of varied factors led to many drastic changes which not only affected the countries involved in the war, but every single nation on the face of this globe. It changed the entire international system and even destroyed and brought in to existence entirely new nations and races, the world today is what it is mainly because of this Second World War. 

Image source: http://www.corbisimages.com

Is Globalization Uneven?

Due to the fluidity of technology present today and the increasingly innovative ways of connection available, globalization has been very tricky to define. However the general idea is that globalization is really the integration of cultures, economies, languages etc. and its subsequent omnipresence in every corner of the world due to the rapid growth of the technological sector, which has allowed people to connect across million of kilometers with the mere click of a button. Globalization, as pointed out by Thomas Friedman, can also be defined in terms of paradigm shifts, especially when comparing the contemporary era with that of the cold war era[1].

The evidence of globalization is everywhere; take the example of McDonalds, (which is undeniably one of the most famous examples of globalization) which has outlets in locations such as Japan, Prague, Israel, and Thailand. Another is the UN, whose omnipresence is a testament to rapid globalization in the past few years. However in addressing the question which is if globalization is even, evidence shows that this isn’t so. It seems apparent that for a certain country to be truly 'globalized', a certain degree of development both in terms of economy and technology needs to be available. Accordingly most countries that aren’t as integrated in the world economy are seeing higher levels of poverty and retarded growth in all sectors of the country, while a majority of those that have been integrated are experiencing prosperity and enjoying higher levels of economic growth and a stabilization in the technological, labor, trade and political sectors.  For globalization (and development!) to occur, countries have to adopt more outward oriented economies, which as a result would increase international trade thereby increasing job opportunities and expanding economic capacity. Protectionism and closed economies are proved to have limited success, isolating an economy through such tactics proves to be detrimental to both economy and society. A fine example of this would be that of the South American countries in the 1960’s and ’70’s, whereby adopting closed economies and utilizing protectionist practices, economic growth stalled and these countries experienced high levels of poverty and unemployment. However after adopting a more open economy and engaging in international trade, the economies of these countries boosted and this saw to a relatively elevated standard of living.

However restrictions in the effects of globalization in the international sphere are to be expected, whether arising out of cultural differences or economic incapability, unequal growth and development are somewhat inevitable phenomenon. A fine example of this is the African region, where due to serious issues such as chronic poverty and instability, development is highly restricted. Due to other more pressing issues such as re-stabilization through the elimination of insurgencies and terrorism etc. economic growth has been pushed down in the list of priorities. This would undoubtedly limit the influence of globalization in the region, thereby isolating it to a great extent from the rest of the world. Apart from the African region and even perhaps, to a certain extent the Middle East and certain parts of Asia, globalization seems to be present elsewhere. However in order to reach a truly unified world and a genuine global community, efforts must be taken to ‘globalize’ these regions as well.

Of course certain countries may also be artificially restricting the effects of globalization for a multitude of reasons. Globalization like just about anything, has an ugly and controversial side to it as well. Many argue that globalization is an endorser of child labor and slavery, which undoubtedly is a pressing issue the world faces today. As industries and business grow, in order to reduce the cost of production companies might outsource labor for a significantly lower price, which not only leads to exploitation but also unemployment and dissatisfaction in the country of origin. Furthermore what many also do not realize is that globalization is somewhat conducive for terrorism, as one of the fundamental principles of globalization is for the easy movement of people, good and services across borders. This would only make it easier for terrorists to carry out their activities, which needless to say is not beneficial to anyone but the terrorists themselves. In addition to this through increased globalization people find themselves adjusting to very unhealthy lives through mass consumption of fast food products such as KFC and McDonalds, which as mentioned before are fast becoming ubiquitous entities. Globalization also plays a very important yet unorthodox role in the spread of epidemics and viruses such as HIV/aids. In addition to this as companies, businesses and industries expand to an international level and become truly ‘globalized’; environmental pollution and the exploitation of resources become rampant across the globe, which is a key issue all nations are struggling to address. globalization exacerbates this problem and makes it that much harder for governments to formulate effective solutions.

However along with the bad and ugly, the good must also be mentioned. Globalization fosters interconnection and international unity, something much needed in the present context. Furthermore it increases global trade, development and strengthens national economies by creating more job and investment opportunities, which in turn raises the standard of living and allows cultural and political liberalization.  Therefore steps must be taken to assists LEDCs to become globalized economies, and in order to achieve this monumental task steps must be taken to foster countries for global integration. MEDCs and organizations such as the IMF and the IBRD should take measures to aid and assist LEDCs not only through financial assistance, but also through technological and educational assistance as well. Apart from the obvious perceived benefits, which is updated infrastructure, better systems of education, economic development etc. Countries learn to depend on each other and coexist, which is an essential prerequisite for globalization. If globalization were to truly become equal in its spread, countries too would be equal, disparity between the rich and poor would decrease and the chasm between the West and the East would surely lessen. This could all lead to a better and more equitable international order, where all individuals from every corner of the globe are equal in every aspect.

In conclusion, globalization while having changed the world and the way we see it, has not been equal in its spread and distribution. This has lead to an intense disparity between rich and poor, the haves and the have-nots. If this was to be overcome multilateral and international steps must be taken to raise all countries to the same standard as much as possible, by engaging in international trade, integrating languages, cultures and idea and making them global. It is only then that we will truly become a global society, characterized by interdependency and unity.

Image source: http://www.corbisimages.com/

---

[1] http://www.mindtools.net/GlobCourse/gdef.shtml