Making the World Justice System More Just

8/6/2019 Making the World Justice System More Just

1/4

Scott Albright

Final Exam

POLSC 369

Making the World Justice System More Just

The postmodern world is the world we live in, a world where postmodern is the

same as being technologically advanced and industrious. It is a world where the

ideologies of past politics have shaped and formed a system throughout nations; a system

that connects nations. Todays world is filled with nations who hold disputable truths

about right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust, but these truths are unified under

the pretext that they all exist to someone or something. Because of their disputability

wars have been fought, nations have enacted laws, and the world has sought an

international norm for the rights of man. Under the United Nations a justice system does

exist that allows for regional governments and independent states to exist within their

own framework of justice, but also calls for cooperation and international standards

concerning human rights. Although the current system under the United Nations may not

be equal to all, and the disputable truths within the institution continue to create more

injustices, there is still a possibility for development. In the postmodern political world a

justice system can exist, and one form of this system already does, despite the

contestability of individual truths.Postmodern thinkers such as Nietzsche, Marx, Engels, and Lyotard have

attempted to explain what truth is. Nietzsches truth is different then Marxs, which is

similar but different to Engels, which in turn, is different to Lyotards, whose truth is

even contestable to my own. To Nietzsche truth was not something the state or church

offered, it was not an ideology or man-made definition, and it was not what others told

him truth was. To Nietzsche truth was something that existed only in his head, to him, as

his own. It was a truth he wanted to share with others through his books. To Marx and

Engels truth also did not emanate from the state or the bourgeois. Their idea of truth was

one where the proletariat deserved political power, where the worker was but a slave to

the bourgeois. Their truth was a truth where the workers place was not beneath a justice

system created by people who made the very system unjust, but in control of it, unified,

as one class. Lyotard saw a truth in words but noted their legitimacy. He saw


2/4

metanarratives as something large and encompassing, but even the interpration of his

writing is disputed. My own truth changes every day and grows with time, yet I still

understand a scientific understanding of life in which Lyotard would call scientific

knowledge. In this he is speaking of existence itself and the understanding of some

logical function. Two positive absolute truths that I know of are that we, as humans,

exist, and will one day die. Within these two truths each individual has their own

perspective and understanding of what reality, or their truth, really is. Because so many

people hold so many truths it is hard to believe that all humans will get along, but

international government systems have unified policies and laws through regional

networking. There is already a justice system through the United Nations that attempts to

globalize a government system that guides and enacts state lawmaking. It is clear to me

that the system of the United Nations is not perfect and that failures such as the UNs

guidance to the decisions leading up to the war in Iraq was in fault because of the unjust

system that is in the United Nations. As Americans it would help to equalize the system

in a quickly changing world.

China and Indias current growth is globalizing the world faster then the United

States can process it. The population of these two countries makes up for a large portion

of human productivity. As a member of the Security Council, China can influence the

decisions of the UN greatly. India has nuclear capabilities and is a key player to the US

mission in Afghanistan. The power shared between the two nations in policymaking is

unjust because India has lack of access to Security Council powers. From a Marxian view

I believe the five nations represented in the Security Council are the worlds bourgeois,

the controlling functionaries of the global justice and economic systems. Nations such as

India, Brazil, and Mexico are unfairly represented although their populations and

economic productivity is high compared to other nations in the council. To make the

system just to all, not only would these nations have to be included in the Security

Council, but so would every other nation-state recognized by the UN. Resolutions passed

by the UN Security Council have affected millions of lives in places like Rwanda,

Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Central America, and outcomes could possibly been better

resolved if more input was given to the decision makers of the time. The General

Assembly is currently unfairly represented in the worlds political decision making


3/4

machine, and it seems only just to equalize the situation even if it means losing leverage

in a system that has already been abused by the Security Council itself. I believe that the

US government could benefit greatly from spreading the powers of the decision making

within the UN to a broader base of representatives. Without key allies like Brazil,

Mexico, and Indonesia issues like the war on terrorism, immigration, and international

financial security become more difficult to manage. The United States needs countries

like these to help support a nation that has lost popularity in the international community

and even within her own borders.

Lyotard explains the importance of the language game which is a critical tool in

the forming of a fair international justice system. Without the legitimacy of the state UN

resolutions become obsolete and internal factions dominate the decision making process

in the worlds court systems. In turn, it is difficult for the state to disregard the legitimacy

of the UN because of the pressures of economic sanctions and police actions that occur

when a state acts independently and outside the realm of the UNs policies. These

policies, which are merely a collaboration of words in print, are but a small section in the

larger metanarrative that encompasses all of the languages and laws guiding the planets

justice systems. With the proper guidance and adjustments the UNs justice system can

be more fair and equal to the world population. Perhaps Marx and Nietzsche would

disagree with how the justice system occurred and developed over time, but creating a

justice system that they both could agree on could prove to be just as difficult. It is vital

to the people of this planet to adopt a justice system that is fair because of the

technological advancements that have allowed the postmodern world to communicate so

intimately.

Lyotard explains how institutions can limit the use of language on page seventeen

in his bookThe Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Lyotard wrote, This

atomization of the social into flexible networks of language games may seem far

removed from the modern reality, which is depicted, on the contrary, as afflicted with

bureaucratic paralysis. He goes on to explain this point in a later paragraph. From this

point of view, an institution differs from a conversation in that it always requires

supplementary constraints for statements to be declared admissible within its bounds. The

constraints function to filter discursive potentials, interrupting possible connections in the


4/4

communication networks: there are things that should not be said. A perfect example of

the use of the language game within the UN is when Irans president Ahmendijad visited

New York to speak to members of the UN. In his speech Ahmendijad lashed out by

criticizing the United States and Israel. Ahmendijad did not get what he wanted by using

the language he did, while the United States and Israel actually gained from his discourse

by proving to the world that the leader of Iran was incapable of using the right words and

was creating disruptions in the communication network. Lyotard explains how this

outcome was achieved. They (constraints) also privilege certain classes of statements

(sometimes only one) whose predominance characterizes the discourse of the particular

institution: there are things that should be said, and there are ways of saying them. In

this sense the bureaucratic paralysis of the UN in regard to the situation in Iran is due to

the limiting factors the UN places on the language game. In other words the game is

slanted in favor of those who get to choose which words are right and which ones are

wrong. Because Iran has said the wrong words the UN imposed sanctions on the country

and the US military continues to operate freely around Irans borders. It is in the best

interest of the world for Iran to say the right things to limit the possibilities of war, but it

is unfair to expect the country to do so being that they never had a say in deciding which

words are good and which ones are bad.

To level the playing field in the international justice system not only would every

country in the world need to be a part of the Security Council, but each country would

also have to give equal input into international decision making. At first this seems like

an impossible task that would only paralyze the bureaucratic system further, but it is in

my belief that the leaders of each nation can become Nietzsches Uberman and overcome

the obstacles that such a task would create. Nietzsche would argue against the ideology of

the UN and would recommend the system be destroyed before a new just system can

even be possible. Perhaps he is right. On page 133 ofEcce Homo Nietzsche wrote, And

he who would be a creator in good and evil verily, he must first be a destroyer, and

break values into pieces. Thus the greatest evil belongeth unto the greatest good: but this

is the creative good.

Documents

Making the World Justice System More Just