Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Leo Gross who was Professor of International Law at Tufts University in his article published in April 1968 had said summarizing his arguments that “Finally, I submit, it is as unrealistic to expect international law by itself to usher in an era of peace as it is misleading to attribute the outbreak of war to a breakdown of international law. In truth, it is not international law that breaks down but statesmanship. Just as in domestic life it is the task of statecraft to anticipate revolution, that is, the breakdown of law and order, by a timely process of peaceful change and adjustments in the law, so in the international society it is the task of statesmen to anticipate violence and war by a process of peaceful change and adjustments in the law. Law and adjudication are but tools of diplomacy and recourse to violence and war are indicative of a breakdown of general and adopted by Governments to conceal their own short-comings. International lawyers should reject the proposition that war is due to a breakdown of the law; the opposite I believe, is true: international law breaks down because Governments responding to elitist pressures and guided by unrealistic assumptions choose to pursue their objectives by other means, that is, by recourse to force and war.” For the past decade John Mearsheimer, Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago and one of the most influential scholars across the world in theories of International Relations with a Realist argument has said repeatedly that the Ukraine problem has been caused due to the West. According to Mearsheimer the decision of the Clinton Administration to expand NATO to the east was a recipe for disaster. As Mearsheimer argues that after the Soviet Union had disintegrated and the Cold War was all over, one should have listened to what the Russians were saying. Throughout the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s the Russians kept complaining to the West about eastward expansion of NATO. But nobody in the West was bothered to listen. Today International Law and Peace look so weak as the Ukraine War is about prestige for both NATO and Russia in front of their people. It is weak as Putin will not settle the war despite Trump coming in the White House. Russian troops are currently advancing on all frontlines of Ukraine. John Mearsheimer using his Realist argument says that Putin will not trust Trump because for Putin the United States will remain an enemy and Trump is just for four years. Six lakh Russian soldiers have died. Despite that Russia has surplus manpower for the war effort, defence spending keeps increasing. For the Russians since time immemorial causality in any war least matters. And China is supporting the Russian war economy indirectly by providing dual use technology, so this war can go on forever. But if Trump completely cuts off Military aid (whose possibility is high) to Ukraine then eventually there might be a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine will fight to last breath (even if Trump cuts all aid) and Russia also will keep fighting because they see an opportunity to advance further into Ukraine with huge manpower shortages in Ukrainian Army. So, Trump becoming President will not change much. Yes, in rhetorical flush one can talk of peace as Putin will be emboldened by Trump cutting off aid in order for the Russians to capture as much Ukrainian territory to eventually drive a hard bargain, something which would be unacceptable for a true patriotic government of President Zelensky to accept. This as Ukraine is a thriving democracy and Zelensky is answerable to his people. Oliver J. Lissitzyn who was Professor of International Public Law at Columbia University said in his monograph of March 1963 published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace “International law appeared and grew because it served the needs of the society that was developing in the West. Without a minimum of order, predictability, and stability, the private economic activity of modern society could hardly be carried on. On a continent divided into many small states and increasingly dependent on distant lands for supplies and markets, domestic law alone could not provide the necessary modicum of security. There was a need for standards of official conduct that would be recognized and normally followed by all governments. Without such standards, the movement of people, goods, and capital beyond national borders might be prohibitively risky. International law, furthermore, served to prevent unnecessary friction between governments and destruction of values and resources.” China too like Russia is an evil force, hellbent on destroying the existing International Law through war and savagery. It’s a different issue that Xi Jinping is yet to invade Taiwan, not if he invades; but it’s just a question of when he invades!
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint