Modern Imperialism In Public International Law

Modern Imperialism in Public International Law

Modern imperialism was born thanks to the combination of important elements such as the economic, military and political. The economic increase, primarily after the civil war ended, provided the Americans with a military fortress and had necessary to look for other suppliers and other prime elements. European capitalism, following the primitive crisis in 1873, closed the main market in the world. The costs offered by European countries to US businesses created in the United States the conviction that they should investigate and institute economic diploma with new places in the world in order to affirm markets, which was equivalent to establishing an expansive policy.

The North Americans began an imperialist policy having as a goal mainly to the south of the continent. They undertook their point of view in the Pacific, in order to locate some naval bases to store their commercial routes with Asia. At this time the conquest of Hawaii occurred in the 1898 war against Spain was a fundamental milestone in the history of the United States imperialism, by exercising authentic protection on Cuba and the Philippines for a large time and incorporating Puerto Rico into La Unión as a free state as a stateassociated.

The Americans did not attempt the conquest and colonization of various territories, with certain exceptions, as European and Japanese imperialisms did. They always chose interference in internal issues and economic submission of countries to their interests and commercial companies.

The objectives that were harassed with the interventions were the following: the ordering and control of the finances of the occupied countries, the protection of North American goods, interests and personnel, and the establishment and support of regimes similar to the interests of the United States .

The Monroe doctrine symbolized a serious exhortation not only for the alliance, but also to the same Britain of which they had become independent, its immediate result was the defense of new American states, purely moral, since economic interests and economic interests andThe political and military capacity of the United States. The Caribbean region did not exceed. Anyway, the formulation of the Monroe doctrine prevented European recolonization plans in America and yielded to the United States to continue expanding its borders west, liquidating the indigenous tribes that dwell that region that region. This great recreation in the contine. political castes that conquered the expansionism of the American United States, after the annexation of significant territories that had corresponded to the Spanish Empire and in their dialectic with the imperial realities then acting – Great Britain, Russia, France, & C.-, summarized by James Monroe in his speech of December 2, 1823 in front of the American Congress, they can synthesize in three: not any future European colonization in the New World, inhibition of the United States in the political issues of Europe and theFinally not to the intervention of Europe in the governments of the American world. It is then when the idea that God had predestined to the United States of America intensifies and had given a special power to carry out a sublime civilizing mission.

Immediately after World War I, for Schmitt, the era of territorial statement was finished. Had been destroyed by the humanistic ideal of universalism. The states ceased to be the central actors of international law and, together with it, it was lost, according to Schmitt, clear spatial management of Europe. But Schmitt always opposed this solution. Humanist universalism was more than the tunic that warn a novel economic imperialism that opened the doors to separatist and death wars. Schmitt did not observe a formation of the space in the pact of the Nations Society and, therefore, feared new total wars, which in fact happened. ‘The ginebrino right of the Company of the Nations has falsified the right of nations in search of a universalist world law the’ falsification ‘of international law coincide, according to Schmitt, in which the Society of the Nations procured a generality that was reallyfalse. In the aforementioned article, Schmitt attests that international law requires a base (space) support that gives the system logic. In the old international law the base were the sovereign states. The Society of the Nations did not achieve the constitution of a world encompasses of all sovereign divisions. But he never built an order that was really founded on sovereign states. Therefore, disorder and incoherence not supported in common ideals reigned but, always according to Schmitt, in imperial claims, but beyond this political proposal, it is central to understand that, for Schmitt, international law should function as a holderof a certain territorial status quo, of a certain management of space. .

Here is a fundamental category of Schmittian doctrine about international law.[The measure that distributes and divides the land of the world into a given ordination, and, by virtue of this, it represents the form of political, social and religious order ’.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century this distribution varied when American states were recognized, making the territories ‘as free’ as before. On the contrary, the territories of Africa, Oceania and part of Asia, continued to be ‘free’ (the 1885 Berlin conference fractional Africa without any pruritus: Africa was totally free territory for the colonial fortifications of Europe- this caused theEuropean states will respect international law, the certainty that the maintenance of the newly detailed area, incumbent all states. The moderation between the nations and mutual respect that as legitimate sovereigns had the different sovereigns, made, despite the legitimacy of the war, no one was instituted in imperative power over the others.

All were interested in not happening, because the change in spatial planning that would happen to him (with a great empire conquering vast European territories and resources), would disrupt the equilibrium conditions. This what Schmitt names a political-spatial organization that feels common to the different peoples. On the contrary, the Society of Nations could not generate a common policy ’. This quote is not from Schmitt, but of an Italian historian of militancy in the labor power during the seventies: Enzo Traverso according to him, the Nations Society did not make a common policy since it was founded in the principle of nationalities thatWilson supported in turn, the Society of Nations (and also United Nations) there was no balance of forces such as the Peace of Westphaly of 1648. Nor did he restore balance as happened in the Vienna Congress of 1815. The United Nations Society, were based on the decline of the enemy: the so -called Westphaly treatise, according to Traverso, marks ‘a decisive stage of the civilization process’. On the other hand, the end of World War II, ‘the paroxysm of its crisis’

Likewise, the organization of the space understood in this way did not bring with it the impossibility of territorial changes, but rather the opposite. The war was allowed and the territorial unions that it produced, also. These ‘spatial changes in the margin’, these ‘border displacements’ that are made through a limited and form, not by these modifications the general equilibrium order was altered:’ Territorial change must occur within the framework ofAn organization of the space that perpetuates existed the variations of the territory failed to change the equilibrium system. In the European War, all European powers were part of the result and, therefore, they were interested in grafting whether the imbalance was held by a significant loss of the defeated or an exaggerated gain of the winner. The central thing is that war did not lose the essential spatial order.

As we have seen, every thought of Carl Schmitt about international law is redirected to spatial management. If the ordination is lost, any request for legal-international order is lost with it. That was what happened after the First World War: at that moment there was a ‘fall to the nothingness of a universality not subject to space or time’

For Schmitt, the ancient space organization was not changed to another new. To the old instability between European territories and those that are not European, a new organization did not occur to differentiate concrete spaces and prevent states from saying sovereign but are satellites of economic empires. What happened was a spatial ‘chaos’ where everyone simulated being the same and economic relations over spatial management prevailed.

The invariable arbitrariness made by the great world powers today and by the economic and financial powers that penetrate the borders of the states subtracted from all control, make them possible not only by the instability of economic and military power between the states between the states. They are also because we have no consciousness of spatiality, because we have lost the ability to distinguish borders and sovereignty and, as a consequence, we have given way to an illegality free of legal framework.

Second, the core of international law is war, and it is since, according to the German lawyer, based on a certain concept of war is that the international legal order is structured. It is not a warning posture. What Schmitt notes is that war gives meaning to law war is an apparent that must be taken into account in politics and that forms a certain legal-international order. International law is a product of spatial ordination and also a particular concept of war., The war was limited and distinguished civilians from military and neutral of belligerents. On the contrary, the naval war of maritime powers is directed against civilians, and they are total and discriminatory wars: the enemy is a criminal who alters world peace. Therefore, no one can be neutral: being neutral is to be a participant. Hence two totally different legal orders. The limited war is in accordance with the International Law of Continental Europe. The unlimited, discriminatory and total war, of Anglo International Law, of maritime preference. According to Schmitt, the sea is the arbitrary and cannibal abyss to settle, the purpose of international law is not to avoid wars. The purpose is to limit it, to reach a war that does not annihile the enemy, not to become what became from the great war. The technical media helped, but it was also the gain of the criminalization of the enemy and to take civilians as the primary target of the attacks that caused the two world wars. After World War II extended the police actions that sought to destroy the criminals of humanity enemies. There is no right or respect against them. As the result gives the death and failure of international law

Finally, the core of international law, war, according to Schmitt, perpetuated being the same after the two world wars. However, it is evident that, from the point of view of Schmitt, the Nations Society failed in the other two central aspects of international law: in what is fundamental (spatial management) and in its purpose (the dimensioning ofThe war) As we saw, Schmitt recognized this since the beginning of the Nations Society.