dinsdag, 25 november 2008
Doorsturen Doorsturen   Printen Printen

Wat is er verkeerd aan “Internationale Orde”

Trachten de hedendaagse ontwikkeling op economisch en sociaal gebied te begrijpen, is onmogelijk zonder studie van de natuur van die “orde” en de internationale organisaties. Dit geldt ook voor de EU.
In de internationale wetten zitten belangrijke gebreken waaronder essentieel is dat de spelers vertegenwoordigers zijn van “staten” en niet van het “volk”. 
 
Daarbij ook te bedenken dat de meerderheid van de staten in deze wereld ver verwijderd zijn van geregeerd te worden door en voor het volk, maar veel meer tegen hun eigen bevolking. Daardoor behartigen internationale organisaties niet de interesse van het volk. Zelfs niet een beetje en zelfs niet indirect.

Hier volgt de oorspronkelijke studie:

What is wrong with International Order

Apprehension of the modern stage of economic and social development is rather difficult without investigation of the nature of modern international order and of the constituencies of international organizations. Entire system of international law is having one essential deficiency, which is unfortunately undermining all good deeds and intentions, which it might encompass.  It is based upon representation of the States and not of the people. While vast majority of the States in modern world are in fact very far from being ruled by the people and for the people, but are much rather oriented against their own people. Under these circumstances by no means international organizations represent interests of the people – not even close, not even indirectly.

International law as well as any other law is based solely on the balance of power and if it is not reflecting or not following power balance it is becoming non-operational right away. There are no any laws without their foundation on the balance of power. Law, which does not reflect the balance of power is only a proclamation of principle or rather a fantasy, simply because there is nobody to punish the lawbreaker for incompliance. There is an even stronger issue involved undermining modern international law. Modern international law is based upon a sovereignty of the States; i.e. the subjects of the law are States. The State generally has no any intrinsic value, while particular individuals have it all. It is mainly a low level of social and human development enhanced by egocentric financial interests of the top level state bureaucracies what generates worship of the State and patriotism generally for that matter. There is a great deal of inconsistency in the very basis of international law, especially with majority of countries in the world being based on thee governance system of dictatorship. While international law and international organizations normally are not only go blind on this matter, but are actually supporting dictatorial regimes of low social value both politically and through an international aid. Military combat of every dictatorship – is probably not a solution. However, it is obvious that international order based upon sovereignty of nations is defected in its foundations.

In the late history international law and international organizations are presented to the people as a kind of opposition to international hegemony of one separately taken world superpower and recently particularly to hegemony of United State, even though European Union is already more colossal in all the dimensions. Such a thesis is understandable when expressed by state leaders tied up to the variety of benefits coming from the State power, but it is quite strange to hear from common people. In international politics and international relations there is an objective centuries proven mechanism of domination of the strongest. And this is absolutely fair – because in application to society the strongest exactly means the most democratic, the most economically developed and the least corrupted country or societal system. State of affairs when one particular economically developed country is undermining the rights and interests of underdeveloped nations would be bad if underdeveloped states would reflect interests of their people for one hundred percent or so. However, such an outcome is very far from reality. Normally, interests of underdeveloped states and of their citizens are about one hundred percents opposite and economically developed countries are much more reflecting the real true interests of the people in underdeveloped countries than their own governments and their own states. Like they say “justice always prevails, wins the strongest” and the greatest societal injustice comes when wins the “weak”. The “weak” at most may be helped and supported, but there is nothing worth from the point of view of economic development, efficiency, societal justice and social evolution than if he wins.

There is no denial that international law and international organizations have played and are still playing certain role in international order and international stabilization. However, today, when any national as well as international social and economic order is increasingly dominated by socialist ideologies, a role of international law became not just purely symbolic but much rather regressive. It more and more represents a concentration point for consolidated common position of the wicked social regimes in defending of their non-socialized interests and in dividing economically developed and democratic nations in order to assure promotion and sustainability of these interests.

International law and international organizations so far have little power and this is essentially good. If they would have more power – such situation would mean that international order is dominated by dictatorships, semi-dictatorships and cosmetic democracies. An opposite statement of things, on the other hand, exhibits that the world is still dominated by heavily outnumbered but economically and politically powerful and influential democratic societies.

Zie  “Theory of the State”  Guide to the Phenomenon of State (Manifesto of the State’s Nature) 
voor meer dergelijke interessante studies.

 
Waardering: 
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars

Door , topic: Algemeen
Reacties op dit artikel kunnen gevolgd worden op de RSS 2.0 feed.
Reacties
  1. Spy-Nose schreef op : 1
    Spy-Nose

    Naarmate staten soevereiner zijn hebben ze in het algemeen minder boodschap aan internationaal recht en internationale instellingen.

    Voorbeeld:
    De V.S. trekken zich bijv. van de V.N. minder aan dan NL.

    Alleen als de V.S. meer invloed kunnen uitoefenen via de V.N. wordt deze organisatie ingeschakeld, terwijl NL stelselmatig probeert zijn invloed op de V.N. te vergroten juist met het doel om meer politieke invloed in de wereld te kunnen uitoefenen.

    Hub Jongen [2] reageerde op deze reactie.

  2. Hub Jongen (auteur van dit artikel) schreef op : 2
    Hub Jongen

    @Spy-Nose [1]:
    ” …het doel om meer politieke invloed in de wereld te kunnen uitoefenen.”

    Waarom toch al die politieke invloed? Kunnen we niet overheden vertellen dat we helemaal geen politieke invoed willen? Het enige wat we willen is dat iedereen iedereen met rust laat.
    Dit verkondigen, eerst aan onze bezoekers, dan aan de NL-politici, en dan aan alle ander politici.

    In Nederland/Vlaanderen beginnen en dan met methode Ghandi gaan uitbreiden.

    Spy-Nose [3] reageerde op deze reactie.

  3. Spy-Nose schreef op : 3
    Spy-Nose

    @Hub Jongen [2]:
    “Kunnen we niet overheden vertellen dat we helemaal geen politieke invoed willen? Het enige wat we willen is dat iedereen iedereen met rust laat.”

    Kon dat maar. Echter, om dat doel te bereiken heb je helaas zelf politieke invloed nodig. 🙂