International Law as the Key to
Peace
In the Western states as in Israel, there
exists an inner need to act according to moral principles, or at least to be
convinced that one is acting according to them. Under certain circumstances
where we have to negotiate with an opponent, we feel compelled to see him as
more moral than he really is, so as to justify the negotiations with him from a
moral standpoint. This attitude, which is characteristic of most of the public
in the Western societies, is rife with dangers in Middle Eastern politics, which
is based on power and not on moral principles. Thus, any discussion of the
subject of the Middle East must begin from the standpoint of a number of its
basic assumptions; otherwise we are likely to be deceived, seduced by rhetoric
that states one thing while meaning the opposite.
Ostensibly, as members of the United
Nations, the Arab states are supposed to act in adherence to their obligations
under the Charter; in reality, however, nothing contravenes their conceptions
more than the principles of this organization. The Arab states, despite being
members of the UN, negate the existence of international law, and not only in
regard to Israel, but even in inter-Arab relations. Even though international
law and its institutions provided the basis for the establishment of the Arab
states, the Arabs have never recognized them because they stand in opposition to
the Islamic conception of law.
International law, like constitutional law,
is a European invention, for which no parallels exist in the non-European world.
It is based on the idea of freedom: just as constitutional law recognizes the
individual’s right to freedom, international law recognizes the rights of the
various peoples to political independence, to “self-determination”, which is
subject only to international law. The European conception of law is pluralist,
and the recognition of the legitimacy of the existence of many states, side by
side in a given region, is derived from it. This conception took shape within
the unique circumstances of European history, and to a certain extent even
contravened the monistic ideal of a united Christian community.
Islamic law is,
conversely, monistic in essence, and only recognizes the legitimacy of a single
all-embracing state – the caliphate – that is based on a single all-embracing
religion – Islam. The caliphate is ruled by a single sovereign – the caliph –
who is the leader of the Muslim community by right and by law. International
relations, according to this conception, are not relations of equality, but of
subjugation between the caliphate and all other entities, to which a certain
degree of autonomy is permitted, but not sovereignty. Since Islam is universal
in nature, there is no limit, at least in principle, to its extension. Such
universalism is, however, the opposite of modern universalism, which is based on
the notion of a network of sovereign states – large, medium-size, and small –
that maintain relations on a basis of equality and not of subjugation.
For
the complete article, click
here.