A unifying theme among these disparate conflicts is the right to self-determination. But the legal application of this right has been undermined by the violent rhetoric employed by all parties in these events.
Yet within the Palestinians' own community, as within the Israelis' community, extremist elements continue to resort to violence in pursuit of their political goals. The Palestinian extremist group Hamas has pledged to observe a ceasefire if the government of Israel frees Hamas prisoners and halts "organized terrorism" against Hamas and other Palestinians. Yet do these extremists destroy their weapons? Emphatically no. They maintain them for when they choose to end the ceasefire.
Likewise, the Israeli prime minister has called for a "methodical and incessant" war against Hamas. The Israeli government's threat of retaliatory violence serves similarly to perpetuate division, fear and use of force.
By using violence, all sides fail to respect each other's rights, and they reduce the likelihood of developing positive law based on trust.
How is oppression overcome without a bloody revolution? How do enemies come to trust one another? The combatants must first come together as humans with an agenda that does not dwell on past violations; then they must look ahead and devise a legal framework of actions based on shared concerns. They also must develop judicial and/or legal structures to resolve concerns that they do not share.
The Russian response to Chechnya is based on international law, which requires allegiance to the misguided principle of national sovereignty. When the Russian national government feels threatened by a Chechen secessionist movement, it calls upon its military to quell the subversive activity.
By resorting to hostage-taking and other forms of violence, the Chechens meanwhile perceive force as the only method of change that Russian leaders will understand. Although the Chechens may be correct in assuming that national leaders are unwilling to consider peaceful claims to self-determination, the rebels must realize that violence will not beget peace.
When they violate the rights of Russians through violence, the Chechens reveal their ignorance of the fact that their rights and responsibilities are interdependent with those of the Russians. Should both sides desire to resolve this matter, they will need to propose a legal, rather than belligerent, solution that transcends the illegitimacy of borders and national interests.
However, neither China nor Taiwan has ever had a democratic election for head of state. Thus, a history and process of people's participation in government and law formation does not yet exist.
With the scheduling of a presidential election in Taiwan this month, this history has been changed-but only on the surface. Until people in both China and Taiwan renounce threats of force and accept each other as part of the human family, legal democratic empowerment will be overshadowed by the lack of law among the people in the region. And it is this lack of world law that enables groups of people to dominate, oppress and hurt one another.
Yet, tyrants may be found in all political systems. When Castro subjugates Cubans to maintain his nationalistic regime, he is using force against the people he claims are his sisters and brothers. Similarly, every U.S. President since John Kennedy has subjugated all North Americans to the threat of devastation from nuclear weapons pointed at Cuba.
The U.S. government's threats to use force to end oppression in Cuba will have no effect because the Cuban government is already based on force. Other belligerent actions, such as economic embargoes, are ineffective without the support of the entire world. For example, western European governments have traded with Cuba throughout the 36-year U.S. embargo.
Ultimately, violent threats and embargoes hurt only the people, not the dictator. The global rule of law, not force, is the only form of politics in human affairs that can effectively implement self-determination.
Hengstler goes on to laud the reformation of the legal system in Bosnia. It includes a new court system with representation from the three ethnic and religious groups: the Muslim Bosnians, Christian Orthodox Serbs, and Catholic Croats.
But while the judicial institutions attempt to bring these groups together, the system still separates them from the rest of humanity because of the institutions' national orientation.
The rule of law, absent at the world level, is likewise absent from the Dayton peace agreement. The three groups have yet to devise a mode or system of human interaction in which they can agree to behave according to global principles or standards.
A global rule of law, applied to the aftermath of the war in Bosnia, would entail the humans in the region renouncing war altogether, destroying their weapons, and swearing their allegiance to humanity and the Earth. Until people shed their fear of difference and the inclination to oppress because of religious, ethnic or personal pride, they will see military force as the only realistic option. Yet once world law is evolved, the sources of fear and oppression will be reduced because respect for human rights will be the norm.
Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reaffirms, "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government." The Internet and computer communications provide a ubiquitous and accessible forum for humans to express our will to each other. It is a forum in which humans can evolve world law from the grassroots up, especially if more countries invest in technology rather than armaments.
On-line services like Compuserve have so far held firm in their opposition to conservative factions in the United States government that want to control the content and presentation of information on the Internet. Citizens of cyberspace have convinced the corporations providing on-line services to maintain freedom of speech and information and to allow individuals themselves to determine what information they will or will not access. A nonviolent free exchange of ideas, in which every individual has the ability to express her/his opinion, is popular democracy in action. And it is an assurance that, as global access increases, the formerly disenfranchised will be heard.
What the warring parties do not comprehend is that all our destinies are linked. What one group wants will necessarily determine how another group relates to its environment.
In fact, however, our resources are abundant, if used sustainably, rather than being despoiled by war and its preparations. It is possible for everyone to share in the wealth of our planet.
The whole concept of war as a means to an end must be replaced with a system of law based on human rights. This system, like the natural functioning of the earth, must encompass human relations that extend beyond the legal sphere. In other words, human relations-whether in economics and business, children's socialization, education, entertainment, or other fields-must be re-evaluated to minimize the negative effects of competition. With better enforcement of human rights law, the sources of negative competition will be reduced or eliminated: people will no longer feel compelled to succeed at the expense of another, to fight in order to be empowered, or to forcibly take from others what they themselves do not have.
By viewing human relations as an intricate and interdependent web of earthly life, where everyone's input is crucial to the existence of the whole, we will foster the behaviors of inclusiveness, harmony, collaboration and sharing.
Upholding our natural and fundamental rights to achieve a less anarchic and violent society does not depend upon imposing one set of values over another. We must enforce our common values and responsibilities as law has always done, but now at the global level. Yet the extent of our own self-determination is necessarily limited by our shared responsibilities. And while law may limit our self-determination, it is less limiting than the anarchy we are experiencing in global conflicts.
Maintaining the right of individuals to determine for themselves how they will lead their lives, Article 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "In the exercise of his [sic] rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others. . . . "
This clause of the Declaration establishes that human-made law, in whose development we all must participate, is what determines our self-determination.
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights defines the right to self-determination more specifically. It states, "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
The Covenants view self-determination as related to group rights or rights of "peoples." I would argue that the right to self-determination also applies to individuals distinctly and to humanity as a whole.
The road to self-determination must involve legal interdependence of human beings and legal integration of human-needs fulfillment in the global economic polity, because lasting peace will derive neither from warfare nor from terrorist attacks. The oppressed must be given an incentive to avoid attempts to disempower others as they seek to attain their own voice.
Because humanity cannot speak for itself, except as we individuals speak for it, we must consider the inherent need for humanity to determine how it will survive and flourish.
If we humans do not speak for humanity through participation in the development of law at the world level, the prospect of global peace will remain a utopian dream.
David Gallup is the General Counsel of the World Service Authority.
This page is produced and maintained by Ross A. Carlson at
webmaster@gmom.com
Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated.
This page last updated Friday, July 5, 1996 - 5:16:49 PM
The World Service Authority, and the human-embracing-the-globe logo are service marks
or registered service marks of the World Service Authority throughout the world.