Mahsa Dini
M.A. in International Relations, Allameh Tabataba’i University
Introduction
In the realm of international relations, broadly speaking, three types of power may be identified as influential in shaping peace: direct and structural power, which creates an unstable peace through coercion and control; governmental power, which seeks to legitimize an institutionalized form of peace through discourses, institutions, and liberal norms; and subaltern power, which, as the voice of marginalized groups, redefines peace from the bottom up and within the context of everyday life. In this regard, the right to self-determination, as a fundamental precondition for sustainable and just peace, is rooted in moral imperatives and international law.
However, an examination of the structure of the United Nations shows that, despite recognizing the right to self-determination in its Charter, the organization faces structural contradictions in practice because of the dominance of the Security Council and the veto power of major powers. On the other hand, realists, by emphasizing human self-interest, the absence of a world government, and the inherent nature of inequality in the international system, regard the prospect of achieving a just and permanent peace as impossible. They argue that lasting peace can be achieved only through a balance of power, mutual respect for national interests, and peaceful self-interested competition. Overall, the relationship between peace and power has always been tense throughout history, and this has influenced the formation of the political-security structures of the international system and interactions among states.
Peace through the Exercise of Power and the Creation of Constraints
Peace and power are intricately linked and often stand in tension with one another, although at times they may also operate in parallel. Understanding their relationship is essential for comprehending the development of the international system as a historical political-security order. It is important to ask what kind of peace can possess legitimacy and the capacity to exercise power. On this basis, peace through the exercise of power can be explained around three broad axes.
The first type of power is direct and structural power. This form of power is directed unilaterally from those who possess it toward others and tolerates no opposition. Direct power relates to the use of military force and other instruments, such as economic coercion. Direct power includes control aimed at establishing peace for the victor, or a form of peace inferred from the Hobbesian view of the state of nature and the social contract (Barnett and Duvall, 2005: 49). Primary power controls and reforms it, while those under domination experience its consequences. This may be carried out by great powers, states, alliances, elites, armies, guerrillas, insurgents, or terrorists, and it may be exercised through the foreign policies of states and even international organizations. It may include aggression, war, or other forms of violence.
This type of power dictates, or is defeated by, superstructural and material conditions such as geopolitics, primary resources, or the global economy. It may also produce a peace contaminated by violence and external interests, as well as a negative peace, upon which a more complex version may later be constructed. Direct and structural power is usually exercised through the state and, through its hegemony or alliances, creates orders and institutions that protect its interests. This requires strong state structures capable of integrating the material and identity dynamics of the state into a bureaucratic set of political institutions. Such structures may produce stable state governance and an obedient population that benefits powerful elites (Weber et al., 2004: 45).
This negative peace, or victor’s peace, may endure as long as the hegemon is capable of exercising direct power over other states and populations and controlling structural power. The victor’s peace is fundamentally unstable and is likely to be short-lived. From this perspective, peace may resemble war, and it will certainly perpetuate inequality. Direct power may also be exercised beyond the state or hegemonic alliance and for the benefit of all, in order to overcome structural obstacles and create a broader and higher-quality peace, perhaps through trusteeship-like arrangements, such as East Timor, Bosnia, or Kosovo. Such altruism, which many see in the post-Cold War liberal peacebuilding consensus, has been rare in history and depends on the highly significant power of an actor and its preferences (Peceny, 1997: 17). Overall, the fact that there is considerable distrust of direct power means that it cannot achieve much success against the will of many individuals who are unwilling to accept its legitimacy.
The second type of power is governmental power — linked to governmentality — which operates in a more subtle manner through discourses, knowledge, and institutions, and defines its subjects through their inability to resist it. In fact, governmental power is the rationalization and centralization of power relations through states (Foucault, 2002: 345). Governmental power relies on alliances, international organizations, and institutions to direct, shape, and influence the behavior of other actors according to their will, interests, ideology, and preferred norms. This concept includes indirect control and a form of consensus that is often centered on liberal peace and is exercised through institutions at international, state, and local levels.
Governmental power means that peace is guided by a normative understanding of rights and democracy. Therefore, it falls within the framework of liberal internationalism and liberal institutionalism, in which the state is associated with norms, international rights, and bureaucratic, developmental, and egalitarian reforms. Its norms constitute the site of legitimacy, authority, and agency in peacebuilding, and they are central within the framework of its combination of cosmopolitanism, empire, and bureaucracy, as well as the social contract between the state and citizens.
Finally, the third type is subaltern power — the power and agency of marginalized groups — which represents a form of power that is usually ignored. This type of power appears both in theoretical and discursive domains and in practice. This means that subaltern groups exert their influence through various means, such as critical thinking, hidden resistance, or absorption into structures of power. In the context of peace, this subaltern agency is often associated with the formation of peace from the bottom up; that is, peace processes that are informal and are shaped in the public or private sphere by ordinary people, rather than by elites and official institutions.
Subaltern agency is networked and relational. It is directed toward peace and can offer a vision of an emancipatory form, because it raises issues of everyday security, rights, needs, discrimination and equality, and progressive local politics. Of course, subaltern groups may also be dominated by direct, structural, and local state power aimed at preserving historical systems of hierarchy and discrimination promoted by local elites (Richmond, 2014: 58).
Historically, subaltern power has long succeeded in pushing governmental and direct power toward the introduction of social, political, and economic reforms — for example, suffrage, disarmament, slavery, labor, and women’s rights. Yet it has also been forced to compromise with external influences or has depended on international agency for support. In this regard, subaltern agency rarely exercises direct or governmental power. This power may contaminate state approaches with exclusive norms, interests, and identities, but it may also transmit signals through which state authorities can act to prevent and address injustice, inequality, and overt violence by playing an enabling role for peace.
Overall, the examination of the three types of direct or structural power, governmental power, and subaltern power shows that each shapes peace in a different way: direct power imposes an unstable and fragile peace — the victor’s peace — by relying on coercion and control; governmental power seeks to create legitimacy and build consensus for an institutionalized peace by using liberal discourses, institutions, and norms; and subaltern agency, as the voice of marginalized groups, redefines peace from the bottom up and within the context of everyday life.
The Right to Self-Determination as a Precondition for Sustainable Peace
The right of peoples and nations to self-determination was first recognized and supported by philosophers and political and social thinkers as a moral imperative that should be applied in relations among states as a prerequisite for the creation, existence, and preservation of genuine and just domestic and international peace. Later, statesmen and political and social activists supported this right as an essential political principle for the establishment and maintenance of just and lasting peace in relations among nations and states. Ultimately, the right of peoples and nations to self-determination came to be generally recognized as a fundamental principle of contemporary international law.
In this regard, the recognition of the principles of the right of nations to self-determination manifested itself in peace proposals that were put forward or presented before and during the First and Second World Wars. The First World War brought the principle of self-determination to the forefront of international politics and is often known as the “war of self-determination,” because small nationalities that had been dominated and oppressed by larger nationalities had the opportunity to express their desire for freedom. Therefore, the principle of the right of peoples and nations to self-determination was a shared ideal that satisfied almost every side involved in these peace proposals (Przetacznik, 1990: 54).
In this context, the process through which many peoples were liberated from colonialism and achieved independence helped to shift attention toward the peoples whom the Charter and other legal instruments adopted by the United Nations identify as holders of equal rights. The efforts of the international community to assist in the liberation of colonial countries and peoples and to ensure that these peoples enjoy equal rights and the right to self-determination arose from historical necessity, just as assisting these peoples in consolidating the independence they had gained was also necessary. In response to these needs, the policy pursued by the United Nations in relation to the exercise of equal rights and the right to self-determination has moved toward broader recognition of these rights in order to prevent any discrimination among peoples.
This development corresponds with the requirements of establishing a new international economic and political order. Accordingly, the relevant documents adopted by the United Nations state that all peoples must enjoy the right to self-determination. For example, General Assembly Resolution 545 (VI), entitled “Inclusion in the International Covenant or Covenants on Human Rights of an Article Relating to the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination,” contains the statement that “all peoples shall have the right of self-determination” (United Nations, 1952).
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also contain an article on the right to self-determination. Article 1 of both Covenants 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.
- All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources…” (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1976).
Since the introduction of the two Covenants, debate has centered on two questions: What does the right to self-determination include? And who are the peoples who possess this right?
Professor Hurst Hannum has examined various United Nations materials concerning the meaning of these terms as they were understood at the time the Covenants were drafted. He concludes that “a careful review of the legislative history of the Covenants leads to the conclusion that a restrictive interpretation of the right of self-determination corresponded with the views of the majority of states that supported this right.” At that time, the right to self-determination was understood “as a right belonging to colonial peoples, which, once successfully exercised, could not be invoked again, and did not include a right of secession except for colonies” (Hannum, 1993: 23).
Although the Charter of the United Nations does not impose democratic systems of governance, a convincing argument can be made from the multitude of subsequent declarations, covenants, and other human rights instruments that the right to participate in government has now become an established norm of international law. However, none of the provisions of the Charter should be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to the dismemberment or impairment of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states. Such states act in accordance with the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples, and therefore possess a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory, without distinction as to race, religion, or color.
This evolution of the right to self-determination has, to some extent, reflected developments in international law, which have shifted it from a focus on the nation-state toward a focus on group and individual rights. The decline of sovereignty may stand in tension with the move toward greater claims to sovereignty by smaller groups. The movement toward regionalism, such as the European Union, or transnationalism, such as the deployment of United Nations peacekeeping forces, certainly reflects a functional necessity and a movement toward reducing national divisions.
Overall, the right to self-determination, rooted in philosophical thought and moral imperatives, emerged throughout history — especially after the First World War — as a fundamental precondition for achieving sustainable and just peace in both domestic and international arenas. This principle first took shape in the peace proposals of the world wars and then, with the establishment of the United Nations, became a foundational norm of international law, according to which all peoples may freely determine their political, economic, and cultural status. Although the initial interpretation of this right was mainly directed toward the liberation of colonial peoples, subsequent developments transformed it into a broader right to participate in government and to benefit from resources. In contrast, the right to self-determination continues to play a key role in establishing sustainable peace as a response to historical necessity and as a foundation for creating a more just economic and political order, even though the mechanisms for its realization in the contemporary world remain in a process of evolution and development.
The Role of the United Nations in Realizing Peace and the Right to Self-Determination
In order to understand the constitutional functions and actual performance of the United Nations, it is necessary to distinguish between the provisions of the Charter and the actual functioning of the organization’s organs under the Charter.
The United Nations General Assembly, under Articles 10 to 14 of the Charter, has the competence to discuss and make recommendations on political and international security matters, but in principle it lacks the authority to adopt binding executive measures. At the same time, Article 12 of the Charter provides that while the Security Council is exercising its functions with respect to a dispute or situation, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests (United Nations, 1945). In practice, this mechanism has strengthened the superior position of the Security Council in managing issues of international peace and security and can limit the scope of the General Assembly’s intervention. Nevertheless, in some cases — particularly within the framework of the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution — the General Assembly has attempted to play a more active role in matters under consideration by the Security Council.
Governance within the United Nations is, in effect, governance by the Security Council, and this Council is dominated by the five permanent members. Article 27(3) of the Charter effectively creates a special regime for the great powers, because the party to a dispute, except in cases falling under Chapter VI — the peaceful settlement of disputes — does not have the right to vote. In this way, the great powers enjoy the right of veto and can make decisions regardless of the position of other members. Therefore, the international governance of the United Nations is, in reality, the coalition governance of the great powers. At best, if they are united, they can govern the rest of the world in order to preserve order and prevent war; at worst, if they are not united, international governance essentially does not exist (Morgenthau, 1973: 762).
In this regard, the judgments and actions of the organs of the United Nations are based on a set of principles and criteria reflected in the Preamble to the Charter, Chapter I entitled “Purposes and Principles,” and, in dispersed form, in other articles of the Charter. However, the normative system of the United Nations has faced a kind of internal contradiction from the beginning — a contradiction related both to the manner in which power is exercised within the organization and to its declared objectives. On the one hand, the Charter of the United Nations emphasizes principles such as the sovereign equality of states, non-intervention in domestic affairs, and the equal rights of peoples. The Preamble to the Charter explicitly refers to “the equal rights of nations large and small,” and Article 2(1) introduces the organization as being based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. Article 2(7) also removes matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states from the scope of United Nations intervention.
On the other hand, the institutional structure of the organization — especially the concentration of power in the Security Council and the granting of the veto power to permanent members — has institutionalized a hierarchy of power within the international system. In practice, this situation may limit the scope of the application of the principle of sovereign equality. This condition can be explained through the concept of conditional sovereignty; that is, the sovereignty of states is recognized at the legal level, but in practice it is affected by considerations and the balance of power among great powers.
Within the framework of the Preamble and Chapter I of the Charter, the most important practical objectives of the United Nations may be listed as follows:
- maintaining international peace and security;
- developing friendly relations among nations based on the principle of equal rights and the right of peoples to self-determination;
- prohibiting the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states, except within the frameworks provided for in the Charter;
- achieving international cooperation in solving economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems;
- maintaining justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law (UN, 1945).
Among these five objectives, two primary goals — namely the maintenance of international peace and security and the right of national self-determination — may sometimes come into conflict with each other. This conflict becomes evident when, in order to maintain peace, intervention in the domestic affairs of states is avoided, while those same domestic affairs may violate the right to self-determination of certain groups of people. In this way, the United Nations, as an institution established to realize justice and peace, itself carries contradictions within its structure that make the simultaneous realization of these goals difficult.
Ultimately, an examination of the structure and performance of the United Nations shows that, despite recognizing the right to self-determination as one of the foundational objectives of the Charter, the organization faces structural contradictions in practice that challenge the simultaneous realization of this right and the establishment of sustainable peace. On the one hand, the organization emphasizes the principles of the sovereign equality of states and non-intervention in domestic affairs; on the other hand, the power-centered structure of the Security Council and the veto power of its permanent members effectively make equal sovereignty impossible for all nations. This contradiction becomes more apparent when, for the sake of maintaining international peace and security, the right of peoples to self-determination is at times disregarded, or no intervention takes place so that a temporary stability may be preserved. Thus, the peace pursued by the United Nations does not appear to be a just peace based on the realization of the universal right to self-determination.
The Prospect of Establishing Just Peace from the Perspective of Realism
Peace among nations is a multilayered and contested concept that goes beyond the traditional definition of the absence of war among states and also encompasses subnational and transnational dimensions such as social justice, human solidarity, and the reduction of structural violence. Theorists of international relations have addressed this concept from different perspectives: realists view peace as the outcome of the balance of power and deterrence; liberals emphasize the role of democracy, economic interdependence, and international organizations; and critical theories focus on emancipatory and postcolonial dimensions as well as the agency of subaltern groups in building peace from the bottom up. In practice, the realization of sustainable peace requires a balance between state sovereignty, on the one hand, and multilateral cooperation and transnational human rights norms, on the other. Nevertheless, under current conditions, the return to power-centered politics and pure realism has confronted the prospect of sustainable peace with serious challenges.
To this end, realists have offered a critical framework regarding the prospect of establishing global and just peace. They are skeptical about the possibility of creating peace and justice among nations, but they do not simply reject these issues. Realists believe that nations, because of their existential nature, are oriented toward their own interests without regard to justice; therefore, justice has no place in international politics. Given the self-centered nature of human beings and their evil disposition, it is necessary to move realistically toward the lesser evil and a temporary balance among nations. In order to establish the desired just peace, it is necessary to act in accordance with human nature. Human beings must replace the politics of attempting to dominate one another with self-interested and peaceful competition aimed at creating security and welfare.
Unlike liberals, they regard nations’ hope for adherence to moral principles as irrational, because they believe there are no universal moral principles whose correctness human beings can recognize. Therefore, justice among nations does not have a general meaning. The ambiguity of the concept of justice cannot properly guide nations and states. Accordingly, human beings pursue power in order to create good and justice. States hold different views about justice, and if states impose their own views of justice on other nations in order to reform them and thereby seek to establish permanent peace, permanent war for permanent peace will result. Anarchy and the absence of government are defining characteristics of international politics, and as long as there is no world government, even if nations have democratic governments, war among them may occur at any time, because states can use force against one another (Pangle & Ahrensdorf, 1999: 102).
Although inequality among powers in the international arena has violated the meaning of peace, realists regard inequality as an inherent part of the system of states. They also view excessive equality as being associated with instability. Therefore, inequality among states does not provide a guarantee, but it does provide a minimum level of peace and stability. If nations are able to regard one another as political entities and rationally pursue their own interests, defined in terms of power, they can do justice to one another and bring about peace in this way. Nations can pursue policies that respect one another’s interests while at the same time protecting their own. In this situation, it seems possible to arrive at a sustainable and lasting peace and at the collective self-interest of nations.
Ultimately, realists believe that international peace cannot be permanently established without a world government. However, a world government will not come into existence unless the global community is prepared to create a moral and political revolution, abandon the category of the nation-state, and establish a political organization of human beings. From their perspective, a world government is unattainable because nations are heterogeneous and seek to guarantee their own security. Therefore, a world government would be too weak to effectively guarantee peace, and the danger of war would remain both in political structures without government and in those with government (Morgenthau, 1973: 809).
Conclusion
Peace is not a unified phenomenon; rather, it is an arena for the action and interaction of three distinct types of power: direct and structural power, which establishes a fragile peace through coercion and control; governmental power, which, by using liberal discourses, institutions, and norms, seeks to legitimize and institutionalize a consensual peace; and subaltern agency, which redefines peace from the bottom up and within the lived experience of marginalized groups. In this context, the right to self-determination emerges as a foundational precondition for sustainable and just peace. Yet its realization within the framework of the United Nations faces deep structural contradictions: on the one hand, the Charter emphasizes the sovereign equality of states and the right to self-determination; on the other hand, the mechanism of the Security Council and the veto power of the great powers effectively violate these principles.
Realists, too, with a pessimistic view, consider the prospect of permanent peace to depend on the realization of a world government, but because of the heterogeneity of nations and the power-seeking nature of human beings, they regard such a possibility as unattainable. Ultimately, this brings us to the issue that sustainable and just peace requires a reconsideration of the process of international peacebuilding so that a relative balance can be established between the imperatives of power and the ideals of justice, equality, and the right to self-determination.
References
- Barnett, M., and R. Duvall. (2005). Power in international politics. Ethics, 59 (01): 39–75. From: https://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Barnett%20and%20Duvall%202005.pdf
- Foucault, M. (2002). The subject and power. Ethics, Vol. 8, No. pp. 777-795. From: https://www2.kobe-u.ac.jp/~alexroni/IPD2018%20readings/IPD1%202018%20No.8/Foucault%20Subject%20and%20Power.pdf
- Hannum, H. (1993). The Right of Self-Determination. Ethics, Va. J. int’l L., 34, 1. From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228152121_Rethinking_Self-Determination
- Human Rights Office Of The High Commissioner. (1966, December 16). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Human Rights Office Of The High Commissioner. From: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
- Morgenthau, H. J. (1973). Politics among nations. Universiy of Chicago . From: http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/ps240/04%20Conflict%20with%20States%20as%20Unitary%20Actors/Morgenthau%20-%20Politics%20among%20nations%20(selected%20chapters).pdf
- Pangle, T. L., & Ahrensdorf, P. J. (1999). Justice among nations: On the moral basis of power and peace. University Press of Kansas. From: https://books.google.com/books?id=N2 SbAAAAMAAJ&dq=related:LCCN99069122&vq=%22Thucydides%22&source=gbs_citations_module_r&cad=5
- Peceny, M. (1997). A constructivist interpretation of the liberal peace: The ambiguous case of the Spanish–American war. Ethics, 34 (4): 415–430. From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239328247_A_Constructivist_Interpretation_of_the_Liberal_Peace_The_Ambiguous_Case_of_the_Spanish-American_War
- Przetacznik, F. (1990). The Basic Collective Human Right to Self Determination of
Peoples and Nations as a Prerequisite for Peace. Ethics, NYLS Journal of Human Rights: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 3. From: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=journal_of_human_rights - Richmond, O.P. (2013). Failed statebuilding versus peace formation. Cooperation and Conflict, 48(3) 378-400. From: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45084730
- United Nations DOCS. (1954). General Assembly-Sixth Session. United Nations DOCS. From: https://docs.un.org/en/a/res/545(vi)
- United Nations. (1945). United Nations Charter (full text). United Nations. From: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
- United Nations. (1945). United Nations Charter: Preamble. United Nations. From: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
- Weber, M, David, S & Tracy, B. (2004). The Vocation Lectures. Hackett Publishing. From:https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Vocation_Lectures.html?id=__sYjFoyjtwC
