HSC Legal Studies: Evaluate the legal and non-legal responses to regional and global situations that threaten peace and security PDF

Preview

Summary

Evaluate the legal and non-legal responses to regional and global situations that threaten peace and security

Includes responses to Libya, North Korea, Syria....

Description

Evaluate the legal and non-legal responses to regional and global situations that threaten peace and security. The legal and non-legal responses to the Syrian chemical weapons threat and the North Korean nuclear threat have had a moderate amount of effectiveness in responding to these situations which threaten peace and security. The Syrian Conflict arose from the 2011 Arab Spring and has seen the death of hundreds of thousands of lives. The Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons in 2013 and 2018, leading to various legal and non-legal responses. In North Korea, there has been a growing nuclear threat, having 6 sophisticated nuclear tests so far and in July 2017 successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). North Korea is also believed to possess chemical and biological weapons capabilities. In order to maintain world peace and security, there have been multiple legal and non-legal responses to control these issues. The responses to both of these issues include UNSC Resolutions & Conventions, Negotiations. A legal response to the North Korean nuclear threat was UNSC Resolution 2375, this response has a moderate amount of effectiveness. On the 11 September 2017, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2375, which included multiple sanctions put in place including an export ban, cutting off approximately $3 Billion in annual income for North Korea, Fuel restrictions, freezing the amount of Crude Oil allowed to be imported and finally financial isolating North Korea, banning any financial transactions with American banks. The global society was frightened about the North Korean missile test, reports from The Guardian states that ‘North Korea’s new ICBM has the potential to reach Alaska’, with this growing fear, the UN resolution met society’s needs bypassing this resolution to hurt the North Korean economy. However, this resolution’s effectiveness is lowered due to the tough enforceability of these sanctions. A UN report in February 2019 found that the country made nearly $200 million from exporting coal and other banned commodities last year in violation of the sanctions. The problem of enforceability continues, with the same report stating North Korea has been using ship-to-ship transfers at sea to obtain oil, despite the UN sanctions forbidding this practice. A legal response to the chemical weapons threat in Syria was UNSC Resolution 2118, this response was fairly effective in responding to this issue. UNSC Resolution 2118 was unanimously passed on September 27 2013, after the 2013 chemical weapon attack in Damascus, Syria where the nerve agent Sarin was used, causing 281 deaths. As a result of this resolution, Syria had to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, involving the destruction, removal and ceased production of chemical weapons.This response gains effectiveness due to its level of responsiveness, the responsiveness of the resolution was swift, it responded to the issues within society quickly but not in a knee jerk fashion, waiting just over a month before passing it. Within the resolution, a core component was Syria signing the CWC, in which the Organisational for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was entrusted with the responsibility to enforce the CWC. The OPCW responded swiftly, claiming “1,000 tons of chemical weapons including mustard gas, sarin and VX were removed in the first 6 months”

(The Atlantic, 2017). However, people such as Susan Rice, US National security advisor claim that the OPCW wasn’t as effective as it did not remove all chemical weapons by the due date. “92.5% of the declared chemical weapons” (WSJ 2014). Those such as Ms Rice argue that the OPCW lacked effectiveness due to its problems of responsiveness however the OPCW did eventually enforce international law correctly, removing all chemical weapons from Syria by mid-2014, demonstrating that the resolution was fairly effective in responding to this issue. The first non-legal response to the North Korean nuclear threat was the Six-Party Peace Talks, these had no effectiveness. The talks were a series of multilateral negotiations held intermittently since 2003, attended by China, China, North Korea, South Korea, USA. The purpose of these talks was to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program. These talks though had no real effectiveness, they failed to stop North Korea’s nuclear program as their testing is still happening today. North Korea also left the discussions in 2009 and begun testing weapons in 2012, this highlights the lack of enforceability that non-legal responses have to world order issues which threaten peace and security. The Six-Party Peace Talks had no way of enforcing North Korea to comply with what the community wanted, thus had no real effectiveness. The second non-legal response was the Singapore Summit, this summit has had limited effectiveness. The Singapore Summit was a meeting between the USA and North Korea on June 12 2018. As a result of the summit, a joint statement was signed, agreeing to security guarantees for North Korea, new peaceful relations, the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and follow up negotiations in the future. At first, the summit appeared progressive in reducing nuclear stockpiling, however the following summit next year was cancelled due to rising tensions. This highlights the lack of enforceability, North Korea does not have to abide by these new agreements for new peaceful relations and de-nuclearisation as state sovereignty allows them to govern their land with the laws they choose. Ultimately, it is clear that both the Syrian chemical weapons conflict and North Korean nuclear threat have had a moderate amount of effectiveness as seen by both UNSC resolutions 2118 and 2375, as well as the negotiations that North Korea took place in. These responses all struggle with a lack of enforceability, as these issues require international cooperation and reciprocity which is difficult to achieve due to state sovereignty. This has led to these responses having a moderate amount of effectiveness in combating these issues....