Trying to reduce a complex social interaction to a general theory, as Dahrendorf states, leads to empty generalizations or to empirically unjustifiable oversimplifications. With this in mind I limit this discussion of social conflict in the United States, specifically from the beginning of the Bush Jr. Administration, noting that an analysis based on Huntington’s theory – largely the disposition of the Neoconservative agenda, which I will discuss in more detail – would make for an interesting discussion. As I hope to show, the social structure of the US closely resonates with the key points highlighted in Dahrendorf. Additionally, while I do believe there is valuable information to be obtained through a psycho-social analysis of this, or any social structure, I think Dahrendorf’s limitation on endogenous conflicts as “the task of sociology to derive conflicts from specific social structures” points out most of the main functional relationships of the two dichotomous models of society along with the principle of authority and authority structures. These aspects of the Conflict Theory model and, what I would call the general tendency toward a neo-totalitarian state are the main points of my argument.

An important aspect, and precondition, of the Conflict Theory model is that it is intended to be ‘crafted’ to suit the needs of a particular conflict and therefore avoids generalizations and oversimplifications. Further, it considers the trajectory of the system and therefore,  through empirical research, attempts to establish a reasonable set, or multiplicity, of parameters to evaluate the system and the relative intensity of each parameter in the specific context. As Dahrendorf points out, “it is erroneous to assume that a description of how elements of a structure are put together in a stable whole offers, as such, a point of departure for structure analysis of conflict and change .” Such an approach can tends to eliminate many of the assumed structural and functional relationships that may lead to incorrect interpretations of empirical data and eliminates the difficulties of distinguishing between intended and unintended outcomes and relies more on the scientific method of matching empirical evidence with stated hypotheses.

II. Critical Evaluation of Key Points

I will highlight the key points of Dahrendorf’s Social Conflict Model as presented in lecture at the World Peace Academy by Dr. Jürgen Endres.1 Beginning with dichotomous models of Integration and Conflict, as listed in Table 1, it is important to note that these
two contrasting models form what I would consider to be a canonical set of mutually induct and mutually restrictive pairs. This is to say that these two aspects of society are, in the case of the Unites States at least, intertwined and are the impetus for change itself.
There is always a very progressive element of society which is met with a more conservative element and the more, for example, the indicators of Conflict become dominant, the more their tends to be a reaction by the more conservative elements of society. This explains the oscillation from Democratic to Republican parties controlling the three branches of government. However, there is an added layer which, according to Dahrendorf, would be the real progenitor of the social dynamic – namely, that the real holders of authority in the United States take advantage of the Conflict/Integration dichotomy as a strategy to divide and conquer the US population while the laws and regulating freedom, liberty and justice are slowly manipulated and normalized into totalitarian state.

This authority structure is perhaps most apparent when one investigates the changes in US domestic law since 911 as well as the   gregious violations of international and domestic law that largely went unchallenged regarding the invasions of Iraq2 and Afghanistan and the case of Guantanamo which, of course, did not go unchallenged but still remains a functioning entity of a rogue state in violation of the principles of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, it was the largely under published challenges to these violations which show how subtle yet powerful the authoritarian structure is. In fact, that several congressional representatives even made attempts to impeach George W. Bush3 indicates that there was a clear understanding of what was going on within the ranks of the government. Still, after 911 there was a rapid decent into a security state which was highlighted by the Patriot Acts I and II, the Homeland Security Act, the Defense Intelligence Act, and numerous other legal maneuvers that were designed to obscure or circumvent international and domestic law. At the same time the penal codes were reflecting a crack down on civil liberties, the presence of armed police and military started to become common place and normalized in major cities and even in small villages outside of metropolitan areas.

This political and military strategy of co-opting the relatively liberal democratic institutions of the US government was no secret. It was openly published by the major players of the neoconservative think tank The Project for the New American Century – the board of which were the major players in the Bush Jr. cabinet and high ranking political and military officials. In the document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”4 published in September of 2000, this group openly discussed the main impediments to the political and military strategy of hegemony in the middle east and central Asia required as being the fact that congress controlled the ability to declare war and controlled the ability to fund wars. These two principles were of the major ideologies being argued for at the inception of the United States. There were basically two camps vying for political power: the Hamiltonians who basically wanted to continue the British system but without the British; the Jeffersonian/Franklin camp who were much more interested in the inalienable rights of humans beings – and protecting those rights. This is important to note because this was essentially the struggle between Conflict and Integration writ large and played out, historically through the evolution of the US political body – with the winners ultimately being those of the colonialist mindset.

Understanding this explains how the political apparatus was able to use 911 as a radical and catalyzing event to enact security measures along with slowly infusing new laws changing the penal landscape regarding what the government could and could not do to US citizens domestically and abroad. If it was 1776 and these laws were being passed there would be a revolution in the US. The political apparatus relied on the fact that the average US citizen did not know his/her rights. To this end, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the War Powers Act, the UN Charter, numerous security council resolutions, the Hague Conventions and the Nuremberg Conventions were all violated and the rights of US citizens were slowly stripped away regarding habeus corpus and the right to redress any accusation for a crime.

Thus, one very clear co-ordinated group exists – those with political power and those without political power. Those with political power rely on the ignorance and lack of will and organization to maintain this power relationship. As noted, this distinction was really built into the inception of the United States via the two political camps and can, therefore, considered to be a part of the structure itself.

It can be argued, then, that the two main political parties – the Democrats and Republicans – are really quasi-groups (Conflict/Integration) with somewhat unique attributes but largely manufactured interests and agendas which are played and preyed upon by the power elite – in this case referring specifically tot he Neo-conservative take over of the Executive branch of government.

This dichotomy of power relations between the Executive (and to a degree the Legislative and Judicial) branch and the Democratic/Republican quasi-groups is not the only form of power relation and dichotomy in the US. In fact, the political dichotomy is intimately intertwined with issues of economic class, religion, education and race – to name a few. Due to the scope of this paper I only mention that these would be interesting subjects for further evaluation.

III. Conclusion:

As Dahrendorf notes, if the Conflict Model is made precise enough to reduce the structural analysis of a given conflict, the theory must then answer these three questions:
1. How do conflicting groups arise from the structure of society?

2. What forms can struggle among such groups assume?

3. How does conflict among such groups effect a change in the social structures?
Regarding the first question, it was argued that the very power dynamic that existed at the beginning of the United States set the stage  or what took place after 911. Additionally, since there was already a great degree of inequality in the political and economic arenas as a result of early colonialism, slavery, labor struggles and a political division between the right and left, the structure of the US society on political and economic levels is largely responsible for the current functionality of a government that is tending towards totalitarian control – a slow, methodical and normalized process. The basic forms of struggle are a manufactured struggle between political right and left as well as a class struggle which was perhaps best illustrated by the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Additionally, there are satellite struggles based on fundamentalist ideologies such a abortion and homosexual rights that are often used as divisive tools to set people at odds. The conflicts generated and maintained by the quasi groups mask the real struggle which is between the average middle class and poor US citizen and the political and economic power elite which obscure the illegality and immorality of their actions under the shroud of the ignorance of the electorate such that the real change effected in the social structure is a tendency towards a totalitarian state in which the rights of citizens are slowly stripped from them in plain sight and, all too often, with their approval.

1. Notes from PowerPoint Presentation by Jürgen Endres at WPA in April 2013

2. http://www.globalpolicy.org/political-issues-in-iraq/international-law-aspects-of-the-iraq-war-andoccupation.

html

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

4. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

In places where there is no relative peace, work can be done to foster relative peace through the means elaborated and elucidated by  many ‘experts’ who work in the field (Galtung, Gandhi, Sharp, Olberg, Johansen, et. al.). Where there is peace, work can be done to  foster community and creativity as well as a sense of charity to those in need. Charity  an come in many forms and, in its essence –  whatever the form,  is an act of solidarity. An example of this would be OTПOP ‘members’ working with movements in the Arab Spring; this is a direct form of charity, solidarity and peace building through the statistically proven effective method of non-violent actions  and interactions. Perhaps that is the differentiating factor – where there is relative violence, non-violent actions can take place. Where there is relative peace, peace promoting actions can take place.

The intent of non violent or peace promoting actions is to change the dynamics of the system in question. The system in question here is the the structure and function of a tyrannical regime, as opposed to the dynamics of trade union disputes, interpersonal  relationships such as marriage, or saving endangered species from the threat of environmental degradation and destruction. In terms of promoting democracy (the ideal and principle of one person one vote – not it’s practical manifestation) there are a number of  aspects we must consider with respect to the the structure and function of governments: how the government gets its money; how the system maintains the status quo in terms of the work force necessary to keep the state functioning; the military; the police; civil obedience , and the bureaucracy of governmental institutions and its proxies. Two dynamical models should be considered and applied and will be recurring themes throughout the movement: 1.) viewing the six items listed above as pillars for dismantling; 2.) viewing the six items listed above in terms of fulcrums that will act as the pivot for displacing or shifting structure and authority in a direction away from the status quo.

The chord structure has
been laid out more or less in the preceding text. The melody,
thematically, is the National Anthem of the United States as Charles
Ives or Igor Stravinsky would rewrite it. This is to say that the
system in question is the structure and function of the United States
and the subject here is the next American Revolution (apologies to my
colleagues from the continents of America who dislike the fact that,
though people from the United States of Mexico call themselves
Mexican, people from the United States of America call themselves
American).

Adagio:
Preparation for a non violent revolution in the United States will
take approximately two years. Several simultaneous (non) events will
take place according to what I term “Ring Theory”.
Imagine a stone dropped in a still body of water and the concentric
rings: at the center stands self; the next layer is family; then
comes community and/or tribe (depending on which term you prefer);
outside of tribe is state; following this comes nation state; beyond
this ring – the outermost – is planet Earth (everyone’s
home). Each of these concentric layers requires a transformation. I
suggest the most difficult transformation is the personal one for if
we can overcome the apathy, incoherence, and discord that is bread in
each of us which is the direct result of intentions to occupy one’s
identity plus the unintentional manifestations that arise as a result
of an inherently complex system void of spiritual guidance (since
Imperialism makes a conscious and calculated attempt –
successful they have been – to remove the spiritual leaders
(and educators) from community/tribal relations). In any case, once
one can overcome (read, transform) their personal trauma, apathy and
whatever else I said above regarding personal identity, the potential
for transforming the rest of the rings increases significantly
(qualitatively observable though not likely quantifiable).

There are many ways to
regain personal identity. I will elaborate on those in little notes I
will leave under stones along the banks of the Mississippi.
Similarly, transforming familial relations will require a battery of
proven techniques using the tools of shaman, rabbis, priests, imams,
and paid professionals. Taking for granted that such transformations
will take place (or, even if they don’t) the next ring is the first
ring of social transformation:

I, or someone acting as
myself, will form a medicine circle in a small town somewhere along
the Hudson River in NY. This small circle will receive training in
Nonviolent actions of protest, non-cooperation and coercion as well
as non violent communication. They shall also study survival skills,
history and military strategy. This small circle of people will then
work with their proxies (Circles of circles) to train them in the
same way, yet each member of the circle will approach Non violence
and peace building in different ways: One of the one’s
will be engaged in communicating with community leaders in different
regions focusing on educating High School students about Non violence
and peace building; another one will
engage with the media informing them of the group and the intentions
such that there is no doubt that the MO of this group is non-violent
and anyone who commits violent acts does not represent the group;
another one will work
with regional community leaders who will take this message to the
local, state, and regional police and military; another one
will work with community and regional leaders and organizations who
deal, specifically, with sustainable energy and agriculture; another
one will work with
another set of rings to lobby politicians to express the intentions
of the widening circle of circles
and ones (see Allegro,
below, for the intentions); another
one will work with transforming employers and employees in the
Military Industrial Medical Media Academic Complex – to win
their hearts and minds – who keep the destructive forces of
government and civilization intact; another one
will work with community and regional spiritual leaders to get them
ready for the spiritual transformation that will have to take place
to ensure people don’t lose their identity in this process; another
one will work with
organizations throughout the country to unify them in their cause for
justice peace and equality (groups such as: Women In Black, Code
Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, Veterans for Peace, Iraq
Veterans Against the War, Christian Peacemaker Teams, etc); another
one will work with the nations work force and labor unions; another
one will work with
community and regional leaders to engage artists, musicians, actors,
poets, playwrights, scholars of many fields; another one
will work as a liaison to
establish a consortium of legal experts and groups already dedicated
to serving human rights (such as the Center for Constitutional
Rights). Anything I left out will appear in the revised version of
this text.

Allegro: A
bi-coastal ‘perpetual’ national strike is mounted by all of those
listed in the adagio. In addition to this bi-coastal national strike
there will be 197 forms of non-cooperation, civil disobedience,
protests and demonstrations around the country including the
occupation of the offices of members of the US Senate and the House
of Representatives, theatrical and musical events around the country,
walk outs of workers beyond the bi-coastal zones of strikes,
workshops in non-violence, protests, demonstrations, sit ins, and so
on. This bi-coastal strike/national protest and demonstration will
take place until the government is no longer able to function, until
the major thoroughfares are shut down, public transportation ceases,
shops close, and, in general the six pillars and fulcrums of
government can no longer operate. All of this will be done, of
course, with the compliance/acquiescence of the police and military
who have not only been informed that this is a ‘universal’
non-violent movement, but that their livelihoods are also at stake
here – that is to say that they have been peaceably coerced to
pivot to the side of peace, reformation and transformation.

This phase takes place
at about 108 (heart) beats per minute and will last about eighteen
days until the government can no longer function properly, or at all.

Andante:
A Second Constitutional Convention is called for and agreed upon by
the Peoples, and the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of
government as the only appropriate means to redress the grievances of
the people subjected to a long history of occupation of their
identities, and a long chain of abuses from early imperialism, the
Native American genocide, slavery, and other human rights abuses
domestically and abroad.

The results of the
Second Constitutional Convention will eradicate the US Senate and the
US House of Representatives and replace them with a parliamentary
system. This, in and of itself, will shut down the super highway
(formerly called the revolving door) between politics and corporate
interests (i.e. it will abolish – at least for the while –
the corporate fascist state the US has become (and fought since its
inception)).

Finale and
Fanfare: With the realization of the power of non-violent
resistance and peace building on the national scale in the United
States, US legitimacy is restored. There is no danger of a tyrannical
regime filling a political vacuum because there is no vacuum to fill
– effectiveness is the measure of truth and Ring Theory is an
effective means of personal spiritual transformation leading, as a
precursor, to national political transformation.

The world parties for a
few days and then a few days more.

The US Government
formalizes the creation of a new Department of Peace with the name
“OTПOP”
- which works with regions of conflict around the world to help
establish equality, justice and peace.

The theme for the next
movement is laid down: the many voices of many cultures singing and
playing in unison each with their own stylistic inflection reflecting
on their history as a peoples. The next target and goal is the
reformation of the United Nations.

Reflections and
References:

The ideas for this reflection paper come from speeches, writings, interviews and
interactions with Native American Pow Wau (the one who dreams it)
Kirouana Paddaquahum (thundering hawkspirit, Lenape/Algonquian),
Mongolian Shamaness Sarangerel, Tibetan Bhuddism, The Polish Book of
the Dead, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Gandhi, Rev Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Johann Sebastian
Bach, Johan Galtung, Gene Sharp, Albert Einstein, Edward Roufberg,
Michael Annis, Dennis Kucinich, Head-Roc, Jan Olberg, Jorgen
Johanson, Victoria Guardino, Tom Brown Jr, Bertrand Russel, Professor
Francis Boyle, David Swanson, Richard Falk, Derrick Jensen and
numerous others.

The basic premise I shall expound upon in this brief reflection paper is the notion that in order for human beings to live more sustainably with the environment they will have to ask all members of the five kingdoms of life, and the natural worlds provisions upon which they are reliant for their survival, what their interests are in the gross interplay of the dynamics of self-organizing organic systems.

To consider this idea immediately poses a problem for most modern civilized westernized cultures – which I shall refer to as occupiers; the situation is quite different for many indigenous cultures whose survival is intimately intertwined with the land they inhabit – thus, I shall refer to these people as inhabitants.

Since we can’t communicate directly to organisms other than humans in a language that is familiar to us we have decided to make decisions for them without asking them what they want. In the best case, we have decided to be the stewards of nature. In the worst case we have decided to consider other living organisms and the organic systems upon which they are reliant as resources for us.

This speciesist arrogance poses a severe problem for humans regarding their survival. Since the air we breath, the water we drink, the land on which we walk, and the atmosphere that protects us are all influenced by human activity and, for so long, humans have not considered the other than human living beings and the water, earth and sky’s needs for their health – if not happiness – humans are finding that the normal structure and function of the earth’s inhabitants and environment have been influence in a way that has not only harmed other organisms and the environment, humans themselves are suffering the consequences of their own actions. Perhaps the most noteworthy examples of the consequences of humans not paying attention to the environment is global climate change and the fifth mass extinction.

It makes sense, however, for an occupier to ask, “What should we do to find out what they want if they can’t represent themselves at a MSP party when we get together to determine how we shall exploit natural resources for benefit and profit?”

The answer to this questions is quite simple: ask them.

“How do we know what the answer to our questions are,” would be a next logical question?

As you might expect, the answer is quite simple: pay attention and listen.

So, for example, if you ask the diatoms in the oceans, which supply a majority of the atmospheric oxygen that people like humans need to survive, if they enjoy and appreciate the temperature changes and toxins we give them as a result of our activities if they are happy and healthy and then listen to the signs they are giving us we might quickly conclude that our actions, which will ultimately not benefit us, do not benefit them. If we ask the tens of thousands of species of amphibians who have gone extinct because of human behaviors which have caused changes in weather patterns and acidification of the rain and earths waterways what they want we shall see and hear no response. However, I speculate we can take their silence as a sign that they are dissatisfied with our selfish behavior. If we ask the river, who provides life for vast numbers of species in vast numbers of ecological niches, if the dam that was built by humans served the river well in providing for the welfare of the interconnected webs of lives, you might speculate that it’s diminished flow was simply a stream of tears from the sadness and humiliation it feels for not being able to provide for the lives of its inhabitants and for not being able to control its own destiny.

These words and thoughts should not be taken to imply that every species that becomes extinct and every diatom that dies is the result of human activity. Likewise, it is also clear that it is impossible to consult all beings of all species all of the time to determine if it is FOK to burn this tree for warmth or to kill this opossum for food. Similarly, there is no absolute proof that global climate change is the direct result of any and all human activities – as local, and even global, fluctuations are perhaps the result of other factors. There is no certainty in these areas. This, however, does not and should not warrant arrogance and ignorance of the lives of others and, of course, the organic systems upon which they rely for their survival.

It is, in my opinion, always better to error on the side of caution. Especially in cases where so much is at stake. If we consider the notion that ‘effectiveness is the measure of truth’ and we ask ourselves how it is that in the last 45 years approximately, since the publication of “Silent Spring”, so much environmental degradation has taken place and so many non-linear changes have taken place in the environment and compare that to, for example, some indigenous cultures of the North American continent who had lived for 12,000 years, sustainably, in their environment who did strange things like asking trees, snakes, spiders, lakes, rivers, streams, and even their dreams, what it is they wanted out of this shared existence – this co-existence – they might very well say something like this, “The same things you want: to be considered, to be cared for, to be loved, to control my own destiny, to provide for my basic needs, and to be happy – as a bare minimum.

The challenges for a culture of occupiers, who consider the earth’s inhabitants and systems as resources for exploitation, to transform their behavior to an inclusive disposition in a global multi-stakeholder process are significant but not, theoretically at least, impossible. In order for a change to take place such that there is a shift in the perceptions of humans to consider the welfare of other living beings and systems as being important to those living beings and systems (let alone important for the survival of human beings) there will have to be a change in the attitudes and behaviors of people and this can be achieved through education. This shift in attitudes and behaviors has certainly begun as it is obvious that there is great attention being paid to the earth’s inhabitants and organic systems by children, educators, scientists, politicians and even business persons for they/we all realize that everyone’s survival, ultimately, is at stake.

While the shifts in perceptions, knowledge, attitudes and behaviors is obvious, the question I have is is it still possible for this shift to be reinstated as a part of a culture of inhabitants in time for the general trends of species extinction, climate change, resource wars, and so on to be slowed down and/or reversed in their course. Clearly, an extinct species will not come back to inhabit the earth, but maybe the general trends of climate change can be affected by changes in human behavior. My knowledge and understanding as a scientist is that it is already too late for the general trajectory of environmental degradation to be changed. The human population is increasing. While first world nations are struggling to limit, not necessarily reduce, the greenhouse gas emissions they produce, the second and third world nations are struggling to exploit more resources and produce more waste.

There are many other impediments to this shift in attitudes and behaviors that prevent attention and energy from going to the dire environmental circumstances on earth that threaten human survival and, of course, the survival of all living beings and the organic systems upon which they rely. I argue that these impediments are largely based in issues of identity. For example, while people are busy with their gender identity, or their national identity, or their religious identity, or their personal identity as relates to things like styles of hair, clothes, shoes, nails, eyes, lips, money, etc, attention to the environment is reduced to a minimum or is simply not there at all.

Necessity is the mother of invention, it is said, and so, as it becomes more and more necessary for people to focus on survival, perhaps the attitudes and behaviors of humans will change such that they/we begin to take into account the needs, desires, wills and expectations of all of the stakeholders in this multi-stakeholder process of the large scale dynamic of life on earth (generally best referred to as either ‘survival’ or ‘reality’).

The following audio is a mock radio interview conducted as an excercise for a class at the World Peace Academy: ”Power, Resistance, and Participation in Peace Building” with “Peace Worker” Adrian Bergmann.

South Sudan Insurgent Media is an independent broadcast based on Human Rights, Survival, Self Determination, Social/Cultural/Economic Justice, Peace, Freedom and Liberation.

The setting is South Sudan, the issue is transformation of structural and direct violence to a sustainable peace based in human needs, human rights and personal, cultural, historical, religious and gender identities of the South Sudanese peoples.

The issues discussed, through the lens of a history of violence and oppression and the lens of  liberation, are related to deep culture and societal fabric as an element of conflict along with the structural violence related to (lack of) education, agriculture, health and sanitation – a few of the primary issues regarding human needs and human rights.

While some of the facts, intentions and processes are real, the names of the radio guests and their alleged affiliations with the real organizations mentioned are fictitious and hypothetical. The nature of this mock radio broadcast was to demonstrate and emphasize the power of peace journalism, and many theories and practices of transforming trauma,  as well as to elucidate some of the real issues faced in many countries and by many peoples as they work towards independence and sustainabilty – as is the case with South Sudan.

South Sudan Insurgent Media

Music by Head Roc and Godisheus (Pronounced “Gotta See Us”). Song Title “Reparations”

This reflection paper will look through the lens of International Law (IHL, IHRL, ICL) – as a culmination of a moral ethical evolution of humankind – at the case of the US military action against the sovereign state of Iraq (2003) as a preemptive war which violated both US domestic law and International Law and, because of the relationship between moral/ethical principles and international law, the United States has violated fundamental ethics which govern the relationships between sovereign authorities as well as the responsibility to protect the peoples of Iraq. In this light, we note that the basic mechanisms of international law are substantial to deal with the illegality, and thus moral irresponsibility, of the United States and the high ranking members of the George W. Bush administration; yet, the means of enforcement are not in place to hold those responsible for such violations accountable and bring them to justice.

While it can be argued that all branches of ethics have a part in the formulation of International Law, I believe the preeminent ethical formulations – based on my brief introduction to the field of Ethics – are founded in the Utilitarian, Contractualist and Kantian Deontological formulations with the addition of the Ethics of Care and Feminism adding to more recent developments such as the responsibility to protect. It should be duly noted, as well, that the ideas of pacifism espoused in the New Testament would, in essence, prevail in preventing armed conflict and, thus having been challenged by protestations within the christian church to pacifism, the need for international agreements became paramount.

As NATO claimed in it’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Kosovo, the war was not legal but it was ethically justifiable because of the grave humanitarian crisis unfolding. The United states argued numerous points – in succession – as justification for the use of preemptive military force against Iraq; I shall consider only two of these arguments. In the first case the US argued that there was an imminent threat from Iraq – that it had chemical, and potentially nuclear weapons and could launch an attack against the United States – and that the only way to prevent this potential attack was to attack Iraq first. The US sought authorization from the UN and was given conditional authority. However, the US could not prove to the UNSC that it had demonstrated an imminent threat since the inspections regime had neither verified US claims nor was given enough time to further investigate before the US began military action – in violation of both U.S. Law (The War Powers Act) and International Law (the UN Charter).

In the second case, the US argued that it was liberating the Iraqi peoples from a brutal dictator – essentially employing the principle of a humanitarian intervention based on the responsibility to protect the civilians of foreign states from crimes against humanity and genocide. While it may be true that Iraq’s president was brutal, there was no case for humanitarian intervention under international law. Again noting in both of these cases, the standards of international law are developed as a result of a long history of discourse on the subject of ethics and morality with particular regard to the use of arms in conflict.

At the time of the US preemptive military action against the sovereign Iraq, there were numerous alternatives that could have been employed. Primarily, the current course of UN inspections could have been allowed to proceed to completion. Diplomatic efforts could have been employed but the United States did not appear to have an interest in diplomacy, offering the Iraqi president a deadline which did not allow for reasonable alternative means. One has to question the motivation of an entity that will not allow for reasonable attempts to solve a dispute by peaceful means. It is not unreasonable to speculate, in this case, that the US’s intentions for invading Iraq were dubious – however, this question is beyond the scope of the nature of this paper and I shall not address it here.

In addition to the UN inspections regime, UNSC resolutions, and diplomatic alternatives, the US media and world media could have made a concerted effort to highlight the current political discourse in Iraq (albeit under a repressive regime, but there are means to get information out to the public) along with the history of Iraq and Iraq’s role in international relations politically and economically for the sake of simply creating a more educated and aware public. This would be counter to the role of the US government and media in instilling ignorance and fear into the US population (again, the subject of another discourse) in order to gain support for an unjustifiable preemptive military action.

In view of the arguments used by the United States under the lens of International Law, we see there is a clear violation taking place. This violation indicates, in the least, that there exists an ethical and moral foundation in international law to test the nature of military interventions. The conclusion can be drawn, then, that international law, in its principles, is fully equipped to judge to the value of such actions regarding interventions of the types discussed here but it is not effective, in this case, in enforcing the laws. It may be that in this case the ineffectiveness of the UN in enforcing international law might be due to the fact the the country in question of violating international law is the world’s only superpower. This indicates the difficulties of entangling international alliances as well as a non-equality of sovereign states.

That the UN was incapable of utilizing its established bodies to attempt to hold the US accountable for a preemptive military intervention on fallacious grounds – causing in wake of the invasion, gross violations of International Humanitarian Law, as well as crimes against humanity, crimes against the peace, and violations of state sovereignty – shows the violability and vulnerability of International Law. In order to restore justice and the principle of “pacta sunt servanda”- the legitimacy of the UN and it’s member states, I believe that the United Nations should heed the words and deeds of some of it’s member states who have taken action against the Bush administration as well as individuals and organizations who have called for justice. In the case of member states, several heads of state and/or state authority’s have banned hih ranking members of the George W. Bush administration from entering their country in protest to their violations of international law, and numerous citizens tribunals have been held to show the egregious violations of IL – which, ultimately, amounts to the killing of individuals, amongst other things, and calls into question the ethics of who determines who will live and who will die; the value of individual human lives.

The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are the two bodies that could and should take action in this case. The ICJ should be challenging whether the US invasion of Iraq was just. If it showed any willingness to do so I believe there would be numerous member states that would challenge the US. A potential case for the ICJ would be Spain vs the US regarding US violations of international law in the case of its military actions against the sovereign state of Iraq. In a similar fashion, the Brussels tribunal, the Tokyo tribunal, and numerous other civilian run organizations/tribunals, and individuals, have valid claims against individuals in the Bush administration who were responsible for violations of humanitarian law and human rights violations, as well as violations of international criminal law. The ICC could handle such cases.

If the ICJ and the ICC were to engage in a fair juridical process, regardless of the outcome, the UN could show that is, and has, the authority to enforce it’s own rules and, through this, could establish its credibility and legitimacy. Without challenging rogue states, regardless of size or power – that is, treating the all sovereign states as equals – the UN, enforcement of international law, and the moral and ethical principles guiding humanity towards peace and security can not be taken to be equitable or just.