Monday 27 November 2017

Was U.S.A justified in attacking Syria?A scholarly overview.



The nature and applicability of international law is always a subject of debate among international lawyers. This debate largely stems from its nature. Its applicability has been contested given the fact that there is no a world government that is central legitimate authority in the international system which police the behavior of states. However, international law strictly prohibits the intervention of a state in the domestic affairs of other states. In this regard, Article 2 of the UN Charter states that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.” Nevertheless, the UN Security Council has the right to intervene as it sees that there is a threat to international peace and security (Demeke, 2013). For a state to invade another sate it has to seek authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Under international law, there is a distinct way of looking at war that is the reasons to fight. Jus ad bellum (use of force) is the title given to the branch of law that defines the legitimate reasons a state may engage in war which under international law may give legal reasons for a state to invade another state. The essay will look at the legal reasons according to international law that will justify the invasion in Syria by United States.

Syria lies at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Lebanon and Israel on the west, Turkey on the north, Iraq on the east, and Jordan on the south. Entering the fifth year of the conflict, a lot of evidence points to the fact that the civil war in Syria will neither be settled politically nor decided militarily in the near future. Regime and rebels are locked in a battle for survival that does not permit any compromise. If the fighting continues or escalates further, the neighboring countries will also bear the brunt. Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and, to a growing degree, Egypt, are faced with an ever rising number of Syrian refugees whose accommodation and provision with food, shelter and health care turns out to be an enormous challenge for the recipient countries. Almost 200,000 Syrians have lost their lives in the escalating conflict between forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and those opposed to his rule (BBC News, 2014). Syria's bloody internal conflict has destroyed entire neighborhoods and forced more than nine million people from their homes (Ibid, 2014). Pro-democracy protests erupted in March 2011 in the southern city of Deraa after the arrest and torture of some teenagers who painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall. After security forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing several, more took to the streets. The unrest triggered nationwide protests demanding President Assad's resignation. The government's use of force to crush the dissent merely hardened the protesters' resolve. By July 2011, hundreds of thousands were taking to the streets across the country. Opposition supporters eventually began to take up arms, first to defend themselves and later to expel security forces from their local areas. Violence escalated and the country descended into civil war as rebel brigades were formed to battle government forces for control of cities, towns and the countryside. Fighting reached the capital Damascus and second city of Aleppo in 2012. The conflict is now more than just a battle between those for or against President Assad. It has acquired sectarian overtones, pitching the country's Sunni majority against the President's Shia Alawite sect, and drawn in neighboring countries and world powers. The rise of the jihadist groups, including Islamic State, has added a further dimension.

The US was a major political payer in the political panorama in Kosovo/Yugoslavia in the late 1990s (Demeke, 2013). Following the humanitarian crisis, mass killings and massive violation of human rights by Milosevic regime in 1990s, the “international community” decided to respond military to government’s brutality under the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention”. Indeed at the beginning of the conflict, the “international community” viewed the Kosovo crisis as an essentially domestic matter for Serbia to settle it through political and diplomatic means. Similarly, the majority of international actors have recognized the Syrian conflict as an internal matter at the beginning. The US was more effective in leading the effort to stop the increasing humanitarian disaster in Kosovo and bringing the conflicting parties into the negotiation table to achieve durable peace. Likewise, the Obama administration had set a red line for Damascus (use of chemical weapons) where the US will be forced to engage military.

Besides having authority from the United Nations Security Council, a country may invade another country on the principle of “Jus ad bellum”.These rules include self-defense, humanitarian intervention, peace keeping, collective security or “Jus cogens” which contains prohibitions on serious international law violations like genocide, torture, slavery, and crimes against humanity. As a matter of international law, humanitarian intervention such as the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses is permissible if authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In recent years, states have reached general consensus that they have a "Responsibility to Protect" populations from mass atrocities, and that when a government fails in this responsibility towards its own people, international action is appropriate. The US and its allies are trying to make military strikes legal and legitimate under the banner of “humanitarian intervention”.  As Washington clearly stated, the aim is not to topple the Bashar al-Assad regime or to support the coalition of opposition forces by directly involving into the civil war. Rather it focuses on destroying a number of command posts and regimes’ chemical weapons delivery facilities. The Syrian opposition claimed that the chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb on 21 August 2013, which was reported to have killed 1,429 civilians, including over 400 children, was carried out by the Syrian Government (Kaye, 2013).  The use of Mass Destructive Weapons (MDWs) or Atomic, Biological and Chemical (ABCs) weapons is strongly prohibited under customary international practices and moral judgments. Violation of high standard of international norms such as the use of chemical weapons against civilians has immediate legal consequences (Schmitt, 2013). Some states had been the victims of chemical weapons during World War I and World War II. For instance, Ethiopian was the victim of chemical weapons when the Fascist led Italian government used it against Ethiopian people in 1935. Yet, the international community failed to punish Italy knowing that it was a serious violation of international customary practices, other than condemning and releasing strong statement against its use. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war.

The Protocol was signed at a conference which was convened in Geneva under the framework of the League of Nations in 1925 and entered into force in 1928. Later, the international community agreed to set a mechanism to deter the use of MDWs and signed the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1972 and 1993 respectively. More importantly, the CWC, in which Syria is one of the 6 signatory states, prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. For example, Article 1(1) of the CWC noted that “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone, to use chemical weapons, to engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons, and to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” According to the US government, the legality of their military intervention relies on the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and CWC in which Damascus is accused of violating the terms of the agreement. This is crime against humanity as stated by Blockmans, (2013). Based on the intelligence information, the US government presented to the international community, President Assad developed, produced and made all the necessary military preparation to use it against his own people by violating long standing international norms. As a result, the legal justification of US unilateral military action on Syria is part of enforcing the terms of the Geneva Convention.

According to Schmitt, (2013a) anticipatory self-defense, is the use of force by a state to repel an attacker before an actual attack has taken place, before the army of the enemy has crossed its border, and before the bombs of the enemy fall upon its territory can be a legal reason for the US to invade Syria.  "Anticipatory" is a term that "refers to the ability to foresee consequences of some future action and take measures aimed at checking or countering those consequences”. Obama and his allies should draw very strong lessons from the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States of America by al-Qaeda- an Islamic terrorist group that is threatening world peace.  A lot of Americans perished on this fateful day. The killing of 12 people in France recently by terrorists should alert and teach the United States of America and her allies that if terrorism is left unchecked it can destabilize the whole world. Look at what is happening in Nigeria for example, the monstrous actions of Boko Haram have plunged the Nation into a catastrophe.

Bashar al-Assad the President of Syria is not different from Gadhafi the former president of Libya who was a tyrant. Assad was re-elected Syria’s president in 2014 with 88.7% of the vote. Celebration shots fired by Assad supporters killed at least three people in Damascus as the results were announced and Assad did not take any action to punish the killers. The American Secretary of State John Kerry described the vote as a great zero and urged Assad allies Iran, Russia and Lebanon’s militant group Hezbollah to end the war. The United States department spokesperson Marie Harf observed that the election had internationally denied Syrians the right to vote which is against human rights. Hezbollah militants group which is Syria’s ally is seen by the West as a terrorist group that is causing instability in the Middle East by trying to overrun America’s best ally Israel. The fact that election observers were  from North Korea, Iran and Russia countries allied to Assad regime makes it clear that Assad is a tyrant because the afore mentioned countries leaders are  also dictators. The three countries supported Syrian elections that were held in pools of blood against the international law of human rights.
The proclamation of the “Islamic Sate” in Eastern Syria by ISIS has large implications for every country in the Middle East and the West.  ISIS established itself as a force in Northern Syria in May 2013. ISIS was responsible for the beheading of two American citizens and has captured a swath of territory in northern parts of Syria. ISIS forces those in the areas it controls to live according to its interpretation of Sunni Islam and Sharia law. It is against Shia Muslims, Christians, Yazids and anyone else who won’t submit. ISIS has released dozens of videos parading its ill treatment of civilians, dispelling any possibility that it is the blameless victim of Western propaganda (Blanchard, 2014). ISIS claims to speak for all Muslims and to command their allegiance. ISIS leaders have threatened America and her allies.
Obama and his allies should isolate, contain and quarantine ISIS and Assad by invading Syria where ISIS has proclaimed an Islamic State while Assad continues to butcher his people and forcing thousands Syrians into exile as refugees. Obama should reject the murders, kidnapping and violence against innocent people, destruction of schools and sacred places and forced conversions by ISIS in the name of Islam. ISIS and Assad’s atrocities, massacres and extrajudicial punishments should be stopped and destroyed by the United States and her allies. ISIS has sought to exclude Syrian women and girls from public life. Women have been killed, often by stoning, for unapproved contact with the opposite sex. ISIS regulations dictate what women must wear, with whom they may socialize, and where they may work. Distressing accounts were collected of forced marriages of girls as young as 13 to ISIS fighters. Children have also been the victims, perpetrators and witnesses of ISIS executions (Wedeman, 2014). The armed group employs education as a tool of indoctrination, aiming propaganda at children to foster a new generation of recruits. As an armed group bound by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, ISIS has violated its obligations toward civilians, amounting to war crimes. In areas where ISIS has established effective control, ISIS has systematically denied basic human rights and freedoms and in the context of its attack against the civilian population, has perpetrated crimes against humanity. Invasion of Syria by an allied force led by the United States is a necessary counter terrorism measure to prevent ISIS from overrunning Syria and becoming a future threat to the United States and her allies. Where there is evidence that crimes that affect humanity such as terrorism, child soldiering are committed under the preemptory norms of jus cogens it gives the legal right to react by a state such as the US in Syria as these crimes have been committed (Hassan, 2015).
Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force nevertheless, if the Syrian opposition clearly asks for America’s help, if the rest of the Arab world supports such a military intervention, and if America's European allies prove ready to join in and indeed lead such an effort, the United States should contribute those military assets which only it can provide under the legal reason of collective security . Forces from the United StatesBahrainJordanQatarSaudi Arabia, and the UAE launched airstrikes in Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and affiliates of al-Qaeda, beginning in September 2014, as part of a multinational force against Islamist extremist militant groups (The Guardian,2014). Rescue mission following the abduction of a number of foreigners in Syria, on July 4, 2014, the U.S. carried out an operation to rescue foreign hostages being held by ISIL. U.S. airstrikes were conducted against an ISIL military base known as the "Osama bin Laden Camp" while at the same time, two dozen special operations members parachuted from helicopters near an ISIS building for high-valued prisoners. No prisoners were found in the building and the special operations members were quickly engaged by ISIL forces dispatched from Ar-Raqqah, and a three-hour firefight ensued. Eventually, U.S. forces concluded that the hostages were no longer at the site and abandoned the rescue attempt.

The Syrian government is under the obligation to secure its population from crimes against humanity committed on its territory. Clearly, it is unable to do so, having lost control over areas occupied by IS. Hence, international action might be taken under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to liberate the populations concerned from the grip of that movement (Koh, 2013). However, the increasing emphasis on the rights of peoples and populations over the abstract doctrine of sovereignty makes it possible to justify forcible action in extreme circumstances of humanitarian need. The United States remains committed to helping the innocent children, women, and men affected by the ongoing conflict in Syria. Total U.S. humanitarian assistance since the start of the conflict in March 2011 is now more than $3 billion (USAID, 2014). The United States remains the single-largest donor of humanitarian aid for those affected by Syria crisis, which has become the biggest humanitarian emergency of the era. For three years, the children of Syria have experienced the trauma of war. They have had their lives upended, often losing their homes, family members, and friends. 5 million children are affected by this crisis. That’s as if children from the 40 largest school districts in the United States had been affected by violence, hunger, or disease. Of those, 1.2 million have been forced to flee the country. Neighboring nations and host communities are struggling to absorb the influx of refugees, often causing a direct impact on their youngest citizens. Nearly 3 million Syrian children are out of school most for two years now and growing increasingly vulnerable with each classroom destroyed, Syria and the region cannot afford to lose a generation of children to hopelessness, especially when it is children who can help drive forward a future of peace (Ibid,2014). This is why the United States government supports the No Lost Generation initiative. No Lost Generation is an initiative by governments, the United Nations, and international and non-governmental organizations to address the immediate and long-term impacts of the Syria crisis on a generation of children and youth in Syria and the Near East region. It aims to expand access to education and provide psychosocial support to the region's children, strengthen child protection, boost social cohesion and promote peacebuilding to restore hope to millions of Syrian children who fear their future is slipping away. The U.S. government is supporting the No Lost Generation Initiative with programming in all these sectors
In conclusion the US-led military intervention has sufficient legal justification and is making a direct contribution to the protection of populations in Syria from genocide and mass atrocities. Whether it will prove to be too little, too late remains to be seen, but the fate of many depends on the international community’s resolve in dealing with the ISIS threat.











Reference List
BBC News. (2014) Syria: The story of the conflict, achieved at http://bbcnews.com.news (accessed on 8 December 2014).
Blanchard, C., M. (2014) Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and US Response, achieved at http://www.crs.org, (accessed on 17 September, 2014).
Blockmans, S. (2013) Syria and the red lines of International law, achieved at http://wwwceps.eu (accessed on 4 September 2013).
Demeke, A., M. (2013) Bombing of Syria: Legality and cost of military intervention, achieved at http://aigaforum.com,(accessed on 5 September 2013).
The Guardian. (2014) Syria offers to help fight ISIS but warns against unilateral air strikes, achieved at http://www.theguardian.com,(accessed on 26 August 2014).
Kaye, D. (2013) the legal consequences of illegal wars, achieved at http://www.foreignaffairs.com,(accessed on 29 August 2013).
Koh, H, .H. (2013) Syria and the law of Humanitarian Intervention (Part II: International law and the way forward), achieved at http://www.justsecurity.org/1506/koh-syria-part2 ,(accessed on 2 October 2013).
Schmitt, M., N. (2013) The Syrian Intervention: Assessing the possible International law justifications, International law studies, 89.
USAID. (2014) No lost generation, achieved at http://www.usaid.gov, (accessed on 12 March 2014).
Wedeman, B. (2014) CNN Exclusive: Videos show brutality of radical group ISIS in Syria, achieved at http://www.edition.cnn.com, (accessed on 17 February 2014).

The role of International law in promoting development



The promotion of development has been one of the main concerns of the international community for the past sixty years.  International Law was developed over time in order to encourage nation states to behave in a manner acceptable to others, based on mutual cooperation and independence. This would in turn be a basis as well as a catalyst for development of all forms, whether political, social, economic or environmental.  (Fox, 1992).

Burroughs (2005), defines international law as a set of rules and principles governing the conduct of states in their relations among themselves.  In addition, since World War II and the emergence of human rights law, international law attempts to guide how states treat their citizens and recognizes the rights of individuals.  In addition it is guided by a combination of treaties, conventions and customs which governs relations and lays down generally accepted norms of behaviour for the entire world community. International law promotes active cooperation among nation states. Dozens of international human rights treaties and conventions also set forth political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights to be respected within national legal systems. In relation to external behaviour such as the use of force, the peaceful resolution of disputes, conciliation, arbitration, negotiation, mediation and judicial settlement, all nations must abide by standards laid down in the United Nations Charter and other international instruments. 

To a great extent international law and development are not completely divorced entities, they are interlinked as principles of international law go hand in hand with development on a social, political, environmental and economic level.  Politically, international law promotes peace and security, human rights and democracy amongst others.  International Law has fostered peace and security amongst states as guided by various treaties and conventions.  The United Nations Security Council is a guardian of international peace and security and has provided rule of law assistance to more than 150 member states.  It has established peace keeping and support missions in countries at war, such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria and Afghanistan.  While not much development has been recorded in these cases, the cessation of hostilities itself is a step in the right direction for development to take place. The complete absence of international assistance in these cases would cause a complete reversal of the current situation whereby there is still upstanding infrastructure and education and health systems. It may therefore be argued that the facets of international law that enable bilateral and multilateral mediation and conciliation systems in conflict ridden states have a direct impact on sustainable development.
Terrorism has been over the years a major threat to peace and security the world over.  According to Wiess(1998), terrorism has become a pressing international security problem and has its presence across the globe.  Today it stands as a serious challenge before civil society.  Terrorism has its presence everywhere ranging from Indonesia, Malasyia, Sudan, Egypt and Nigeria and America. Terrorist attacks destroy lives, infrastructure and reverse all developmental efforts.In Nigeria, the Boko Haram has slowed down that country’s economy.  In the north eastern parts of the country, where this terrorist group operates, education services have virtually ground to a halt as schools are constantly attacked and children abducted, particularly girls. Literacy rates are bound to fall significantly even for the whole country. Development will therefore be declining until such time as the principle of law that accords access to education for the citizens is observed.
However, on a global scale, international law, through the principle of Jus Cogens has helped withthe fight against international terrorism.  The bombings by Nato in Afghanistan to control Al Qaeda and the hunt and eventually capture of Osama bin Laden has to some extent brought the threat of terror attacks to a minimal. The combined fight against groups such as ISIL by USA, Jordan, France and their allies will also hopefully be successful, in order for developmental programs and efforts to resume in Iraq and Syria.
Human rights is another principle of international law that has resulted in the creation of many conventions, it is in itself an indicator of development.  The international human rights law is the body of international designed to promote and protect human rights at international, regional and domestic levels.  It is made up of treaties, agreements between states.  States have ratified human rights treaties, committed themselves to respecting those rights and ensuring that their domestic law is compatible with international legislation.  Key focus of human rights is the humanitarian intervention.  Through the principle of Jus ad Bellum, for example Nato’s bombing of Libya was justified as that country was abusing human rights by killing and torturing civilians.  In Somalia, Operation Restore Order between 1992 and 1994 by the United States led military offered humanitarian relief to poverty stricken and war ridden country.  The rights of women and children are a fundamental developmental principle as observing these rights lead to development, shown by lower mortality and higher literacy rates.  For example women empowerment and protection from exploitation and abuse as prescribed by CEDAW convention, is what is to be achieved.  The United Nations Charter on Children’s Rights and the African Union’s Charter on the rights of the children are major conventions guiding states on the upholding of children’s rights globally and regionally respectively, (The World’s Women,2010).
Democracy as a principle of international law ensures that conventions such as the ones by SADC, African Union and European Union amongst others create a guide that promotes democracy and therefore development amongst states.  For example SADC has its own guidelines on elections in its member countries, this has resulted in members states holding their elections as prescribed by the body.  For example SADC has the power to not endorse flawed election results.  Schott(2005) notes that the United Nations Electoral Elections Assistance Division provides various forms of electoral assistance to over 70 states most of them in Africa.  Many of these organisations determine whether the elections were conducted according to the criterion of fairness.  Democratic states have also attracted foreign direct investments, for example South Africa is enjoying an economic growth as a result of foreign direct investment in that country further resulting in employment creation and improvement in service delivery systems. 
However politically, international law may lead to underdevelopment as powerful states at times seem not to conform to the predicates of the law.  For example it provides a basis for conflict as shown by the military invasion of Libya by the United States led Nato. Libya was a self-sufficient prosperous state until 2011 Nato bombing as the country was alleged to be violating human rights by attacking its own civilians.  However it is understood that the US was in actual fact protecting its oil resources in Libya.  To this day the country is still in conflict zone and infrastructure has been destroyed, people are killed every day and poverty levels are very high.  The education and health systems have since collapsed as a result.  Instead of bringing peace the intervention by the US has brought underdevelopment to a country that was enjoying development in its own way.
International law has also been seen as neo-colonialism especially with regards to countries in Africa.  Trade imbalance and political meddling by western powers in Africa is a major problem.  For example across the African continent, Chinese demand for iron ore, copper, chrome and timber has led to trade agreements in which Chinese government owned companies are granted rights to exploit natural resources in Africa.  Chinese approach is a new form of colonialism and their interests are motivated solely for its benefit.  This trend, not by China alone but Europe and America have further crippled economies in Africa and caused underdevelopment.  Aid with conditions by the Bretton Woods Institutions has resulted in the underdevelopment of most implementing states, for example Zimbabwe and Zambia. 
On a social level international law has resulted in the promotion of health, education, women and children’s rights, free passage of aid, protection of refugees all of which result in development.  Education is spearheaded by Unicef as it focuses on improving learning and teaching materials, support teacher training and motivate teachers and encourage the adoption of the Child Friendly School Model, as noted by (Global Campaign for Education,2012). For instance in Zimbabwe it has contributed over 23 million textbooks to primary and secondary schools.  It has also built classroom blocks in remotes areas.  Health is fundamental in promoting development.  The World Health Organisation protects children and women on health matters.  For example it advocates for the rights of women not to participate in issues such as female genital mutilation and other harmful practices.  UNHCR recognises the rights of refugees by providing them with the basic necessities, ensuring their safety as well as that humanitarian aid reaches them and not tampered with by rebels or the military.
However, international law can also advocate practices that go against local cultures and traditions. The case of Uganda and their stand on not allowing homosexuality caused the imposition of economic sanctions by the Scandinavian countries.  Imposing these sanctions meant that Uganda was not at liberty to make its laws as a sovereign country, this has an impact on development as these sanctions affect the ordinary people.  Much needed financial aid for the support of hospitals and schools was suspended and negatively impacted on development.
International law has over the years supported conventions and treaties encouraging states to freely trade with each other thereby economically enhancing development in third world countries.  There has been growth of gross domestic product in the less developed world as a result of trade agreements.  Loans from multi-lateral financial institutions, like the Bretton woods Institutions, the IMF and the World Bank are the main lenders of international finance.  All countries in Southern Africa have been recipients of loans from the IMF and the World Bank. Major Infrastructural projects such as the Kariba and the main highways were built with such funds. Bilateral agreements between states have also assisted economic growth, for example Lesotho built their highland dam and power station with the assistance of South Africa. Zimbabwe and China have had various trade agreements in the mining and construction sectors.  Russia and Zimbabwe have signed off agreements to mine platinum on the Great Dyke.  Employment has been created in this sector as a result and the activity will increase the country’s GDP. 
There has however been under development in the developing countries as a result of unfair trade practices and unfair investment practices overseen by the World Trade Organisation.  The WTO sets trading conditions for all states.  The organisation pays insufficient attention to the needs of developing countries and favours more developed countries.  This is despite its non-discrimination principle of serving both the rich and the poor countries.  Juma(1999) stated that the benefits of increased trade are not widely shared, the developing states represent 20% of the world’s population and they generate 0.03% of trade flows.  Besides the principle of reciprocity that is one country negotiates concessions in area, however these negotiations take place among developed countries.

According to DiMento(2003), international law has become the key arena for protecting the global environment. Since the 1970s, literally hundreds of International treaties, protocols, conventions and rules have been enacted to deal with such problems as global warming, loss of biodiversity and toxic pollution. Proponents of the legal approach to environmental protection have already achieved significant successes in such areas as saving endangered species, reducing pollution and cleaning up whole regions, but skeptics point to ongoing environmental degradation to argue that international law is an ineffective tool for protecting the global environment.
The 1985 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) popularly known as the Brundtland Commission popularised the phrase ‘sustainable development, embodying both states’ right to economic development and their obligation to pay particular attention to any degradation of the environment resulting from development activities.The Commission defined the term ‘sustainable development as‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In the opinion of the Commission, economic development that undermined the environment or led to the excessive exploitation of natural resources to the detriment of future generations was not sustainable development, ( Taylor,1998).

However, Pearson (2000) argues that environmental laws are only just words unless they are implemented effectively yet non implementation and non-compliance are so common that they must be viewed as the norm rather than exception in the majority of nations.  Developed nations might need to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and control gas emissions that continue to affect developing nations.  Laws on countries like China who still regard themselves as developing nations need to be looked into and the USA being the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases needs to lower its emission rates.
With regards to international environmental law, it can be demonstrated that on a local geographical level where the principles have been observed, development is real and can be sustained. This can be seen in re-afforestation projects, mine dump reclamation and reduction, recycling and reuse of industrial waste. This is common the world over, where the communities are investing in “going green”.
However, on a global scale, the refusal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by large industrial players has resulted in a worsening global warming scenario. The results of climate change at this level have always had a more devastating effect on the poorer nations because they lack both the warning systems and the means to manage the disasters when they happen. Flooding, droughts and famine are commonplace in poor African and Asian nations.  Homelessness, lack of food security and medical facilities have degraded per capita incomes, life expectancy and heightened mortality rates in the less developed world, all this because the environmental principles have not been observed. The observance of the law would have seen a much improved development situation, in the affected communities.

Another element of environmental criticism is the issue of carbon trading as contained in the Kyoto Protocol.  New York Times (2012) reported that the REDD projects have received criticism in some parts of Africa.  For example there have been allegations that Redd+ carbon credits, agro-fuels and export crops are driving massive land grabs in implementing countries.  Experts have warned that three quarters of Africa’s population and two thirds of its land is at risk and that Redd may create a generation of landless people.  Redd is emerging as a new form of colonialism, economic subjugation improvement and a driver for land grabs.  For example carbon trading companies have applied for rights over one third of Mozambique to sell Redd credits.  More than 40% of Cameron’s forests, almost 20% of the country may be slated for Redd type projects and 20% of Liberia’s forest were almost grabbed for a billion dollar carbon scam.  In Uganda 22000 people were evicted in Kigadu district to make way for a UK based New Forests company to plant trees to earn credits and ultimately sell the timber. 

It can be concluded from the foregoing that international law and development are interlinked. Despite the setbacks mentioned, international law still remains a critical factor in development and particularly sustainable development of the communities of the world. If there was no existence of such treaties and conventions the world would be ungovernable and be in a consistent state of dispute and war, and there would certainly be no development to talk about.





             REFERENCES

Baker, R. (2005) Capitalism’s Achilles Heel. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Boer, G. (2008), Greenhouse gas induced climate change, second generation general
circulation model, Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society, 1077

Burroughs, J. ( 2005) International Law and Peace; A Peace Lesson; A web-based part of
Hague Appeal for Peace, Peace Lessons from Around the
                                   World,www.haguepeace.org

DiMento, J.(2003) The Global Environment and International Law.Journal of International
Development, Vol 2, No 4.

Fox, H. (1992) International economic law and developing states;an introduction, BIICL,
                         London. Pp1-23.

Global Campaign for Education; Gender Discrimination in Education: The violation of rights
of women and girls, (2012) pp6-10

ICESCR (1999) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,1966
adopted by General Assembly resolution 2200A of 16 December.

Juma, C. (1999) Intellectual Property Rights and Globalization: Implications for
Developing Countries.’ Science, Technology and Innovation
Discussion PaperNo. 4. Harvard Centre for International
Development.

Pearson, C. (2005)Economics and the global environment(Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2000)

Schott,J. (2005)NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges; p23.

Taylor, P (1998)An ecological approach to international law: Responding to
challenges of climate change,Routledge, London.

The World’s Women (2010): Trends and statistics, www.endvawn.org/en/articles

Wiess, F. (1998) International economic law with a human face, Kluwer Law International,
The Hague, pp45-55



International women's day

  The first International Women’s Day occurred on March 19 in 1911. The inaugural event, which included rallies and organized meetings, was ...