Interplay of norms: Democracy and Protecting State Sovereignty

A norm is 'collective expectations of the appropriate behavior of an actor with a particular identity.' (as per our class discussion)

BBC News published an article today, 'West 'embraces sham democracies', in which it is stated 'HRW said Pakistan, Thailand, Bahrain, Jordan, Nigeria, Kenya and Russia had been falsely claiming to be democratic.' This article also cites HRM as accusing the US and EU member states of accepting less than democratic regimes.

This report brings to light the interplay between two primary norms that are fighting for supremacy: democracy and state sovereignty, in the international system. These two concepts are primary elements that structure the international regime (as defined by Krasner, 1983) of politics, economics, and law. However, these two norms may restrict state behavior in the international system. Democracy (political openness) has become the expected regime type (Simmons et al, 2006) and as "[Vaughan] Lowe points out, state responsibility is a fundamental, primary norm, on which other norms are built.' (Percy, 2007).

First, democracy.
The USA and EU member states 'push' for democracy and NGOs such as Freedom House and the Center for International Development and Conflict Management rank states according to their compliance with the norm of a 'democratic' regime. There is 'Western' condemnation of a state that denies its citizens democratic freedoms. However, if a state holds questionable elections or denies elections or is clearly not pursuing a democratic regime, aside from tailored criticism, not much is done by other states to enforce democratic practices (other than withholding financial aid). The pursuit of a democratic regime, I think can be labeled as a regulative and constitutive norm, if that is possible. I think democracy is a regulatory norm because sometimes aide is withheld from a state by another state or an IO unless it implements greater democratic reforms. This can be seen in application of the Washington Consensus implement by the IMF and World Bank. Those states that do not comply are made to justify why they are not complying and then reform themselves. However, this weak, voluntary form of compliance does not have universal support and only functions in those countries that agree to the terms of the IO loans. There are also other states that in times of financial crisis seek their own path to stability, ignoring international pressures to conform.

Second, state sovereignty.
As the state structure is the norm by which the international system is structured, maintaining this norm is essential even if the dominant states of the system do not agree with the regime type of a weaker state. International laws and IHL are structured on the state structure. Both regimes expect/rely on the state to enforce the norms that develop. However, states adapt and utilize international laws and IHL to their own advantage as and when necessary. For example, the US's continued usage of Guantanamo Bay, usage of 'secret' prisons in less than democratic states, and reported violations of Iraqi civilian right by US soldiers/PMFs - are all explained in terms of securing and protecting state sovereignty (national security). State is a norm based on the constitutive nature of a norms as the state is often used to identified a group.

State sovereignty is enshrined as the key norm which international law seeks to ensure regardless of regime type and strength. However, it appears that a state's sovereignty is strengthened by its ability to put into place democratic practices. For a state to increase its legitimacy within the international system it has to implement greater political reforms that lead to democracy. States may choose to open or not to open. If a state chooses not to create a democratic regime, it is exercising its sovereignty. However, capital flows and international trade may be effected forcing the state to chose to follow the norm of democracy over protecting its sovereign self-interest of retaining corrupt or more authoritarian regimes. As per HRW claims in the article, democratic states are accepting less then democratic regimes in non-democratic states enable to secure the norm based system based on states.

• Feedback will be appreciated as I feel that my thoughts are jumbled and not pulled together into a coherent argument/fashion.
• Do you see an interplay between state sovereignty and democracy?

Humanitarian Worldview

Martha Finnemore (1999) notes that the 'humanitarian worldview asserts that individuals have status and worth independent of their relationship to states.' (152) This is true, but then what entity will protect the individual? The 'liberal' views of democracy and the market are based on the the idea of the individual. Is this dominant form of individualism different in times of war? This quote makes me think of Karl Polanyi (1944) and his view that the market is embedded in the social structures of the state, without this embeddedness social disintegration would occur. If the humanitarian worldview separates the individual from the state, who is to protect the individual? Currently there is not really an IGO or NGO strong enough to override a state.
Sarah Percy (2007) notes that one of the reasons anti-mercenary laws and other weak laws exist is that the legal language may at times be too precise: "[Vaughan] Lowe points out, state responsibility is a fundamental, primary norm, on which other norms are built. Tinkering with state responsibility for the sake of creating law on mercenaries would have disrupted the entire system of international law." (386) In some ways this quote strengthens my concern or discomfort with the quote from Finnemore. Yes the individual's rights should be respected, however, in states suffering from conflict, what mechanism should be put into place other than state structures to protect the individual? Finnemore does not present an alternative, she just notes the humanitarian worldview.

Movie: Three Kings...norms v laws; self interest v rules of law.

Three Kings:

Watch the film for evidence of "norms" at work. To what extent is the behavior of the actors interest-based versus rule-based? How do you know the difference? Explain in the context of the supplementary readings.

IHL is frequently inhibited by the more powerful norm of state sovereignty. States do not want their internal affairs affected by an outside force and strive to protect their sovereignty through customary and international law. This nexus between IHL and intervention is depicted in the movie Three Kings. In this film, the US and allies have just signed a ceasefire with Iraq ‘concluding’ the Gulf War. However, in this film, this treaty creates a space where the interplay between the established rules of war and the self-interest of specific US soldiers interact.

It is assumed that the US military is highly organized and ethical (despite the recent events of Abu Ghraib). However, in this film, the self-interests of four US soldiers enable them to utilize a ceasefire to pursue ‘looting.’ Upon finding a ‘butt map,’ the soldiers do not report to their superiors as per the established chain of command as they believe they will be able to gain financially (and illegally). The US soldiers believe that because the ceasefire has been signed they can go into Iraqi territory and do just about whatever they want as long as they do not engage the ‘enemy’ (Iraqi troops) or interfere with the domestic population. During the course of the film, only one Iraqi commander attempts to stop the US soldiers, which provokes hostilities and shots being fired. As long as the US soldiers did not see any human rights violations, they were prepared to break rules in order to pursue self interested financial gain. However, once they witness the severe human rights violations, the soldiers break the rules of the treaty, the norms of non-interference, and attempt to protect the villagers and their financial interest through thievery.

What is interesting while watching the film, is that as long as the US troops did not interfere with the domestic affairs of Iraq, the Iraqis were prepared to ignore the rule breaking of the US soldiers. Ward Thomas writes that ‘state actors are more likely to be governed by the norm (than international law)’ (43). However, even though government policy is not to interfere in the domestic affairs of a state, the soldiers, once they were aware of the human rights violations were unable to comply with non-interference in domestic affairs. Also despite the stronger affect of norms on state actors, the soldiers (ranging from highly trained and organized to uneducated) did not follow rules of the ceasefire once noncombatants were targeted.

Also, at the end of the film, when the Iraqi refugees were almost across the border, and the rule following US soldiers finally found the four ‘looting’ soldiers, the aim became primarily to arrest the rule breaking soldiers, without regard for the safety and welfare of the Iraqi refuges. However, like the rule breaking soldiers, once the issue of gold bullion was mentioned, the gold became a bartering chip for the lives of the Iraqi refugees. The self-interest of the soldiers enforced the breaking of the norm that prohibited interference in domestic affairs. The self interest, rule following, interpretation of the rule, or the selflessness of the soldier affects the on the ground actions, while governments far removed make decisions according to norms and international law.

One Young Hero Versus the Mighty Military (Rubbish)

In respond to Bobbie Morgan’s ‘One Young Hero Versus the Mighty Military,’ (26 January 2006).

The article link above does not present a logical argument as it is emotionally based and does not take into the laws and norms of war. Bobbie Morgan uses the term ‘Just War Theory’ to avidly support Lt. Watada’s declaration that he would not fight in Iraq as it was an illegal war.

Briefly and simply, Just War Theory is primarily broken into two parts: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. According to jus ad bellum, it is a government that wages war, not individuals; and jus in bello drives the fair treatment of noncombatants in a war through international monitoring of the actions of the combatant government policies and individual soldiers’ actions.

What Morgan does not acknowledge is that legally, the soldier does not have the ‘right’ to deny his deployment. Lt. Watada believes that the Iraq war is illegal, however, it is the government, his employer, not the individual soldier that decides if a country will go to war. It is up to the state to justify its declaration of war to the international community. Soldiers can decide their individual behavior during war, such as restricting excessive force and fair treatment of the noncombatants. For example, if Lt. Watada had seen Abu Ghraib human rights violations, and had spoken out against his peers, then he would be justified according to the principles of jus in bello for speaking out. However, Lt. Watada freely signed up to the US military, which meant that he agreed to the job of being a US soldier, which means carrying out assigned missions. There have been and will continue to be many military people that do not want to be deployed on missions. However, it is their job. If this man wanted to retain his decision making abilities about whether the US was making accurate decisions about jus ad bellum he should have become a politician, not a soldier.

The military is an organization structured on a hierarchical structure with the decision making at the top of the pyramid, the President. A military would not be able to function if it allowed its soldiers to declare that they thought the military's actions were illegal.

Iraq War and the deaths of noncombatants.

According to Just War Theory's jus in bello, civilians are noncombatants and ought to be protected. This precedent has been established historically by the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

However, according to the data, roughly 3,500 USA soldiers have died since the war began, but 30,000 to 650,000 Iraqis have died. These Iraqi deaths are a combination of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. If the predominant leader of the system, the USA, does not discriminate between the noncombatants and combatants, how can developing countries mired in conflict be expected to practice jus in bello and protect their civilians? There appears to be a double standard in the application of Just War Theory and the protection of civilians. America's civilians are not more important than Iraqi noncombatants so why this apparent distinction in the value of different nationals' lives?

To access the interactive data table click on: NPR comparative data table.

Mission: "Operation Phantom Phoenix"

On 10 January 2008, as a result of previously harming Iraqi civilians in operations, US troops held off their attack on Al Qaeda held areas in north and south Baghdad, until it appeared that the civilians had fled the area.

It is a good sign that the US military is learning that winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is necessary to win the war, and that harming civilians does not help in that endeavor. It does appear to be an improvement in strategy that greater consideration has been given to the civilians. However, it will be interesting to know if the halt until the civilians moved out of the area was successful. Did the 'terrorists' flee with the civilian non-combatants. Was the mission successful, had it or will it achieve its aims? How many noncombatant civilians died or will die as a result of this mission?

To learn more about the Operation please click.