Can international peace and stability really be attained today?

The First World War was supposed to be the ‘war to end war’. Just one hundred years ago, millions died in one of the deadliest conflicts in history. World War I did not bring the end of warfare. World War II had similar casualties but nothing really changed. With the rapid advancement of technology, the spread of questionable religious beliefs and growing inequalities, the world has witnessed even more bloody conflicts in the 21st century in Syria, Libya and Yemen. One must acknowledge that people and countries place self-interests first, and would result in whatever means to fight for their rights or gain dominance. It is evident that international peace and stability is unattainable in this highly interconnected world of today.

One may naively presume that with more international cooperation, wars would ease. However, some conflicts are driven by religious beliefs makes it all the harder for international peace to be attained despite cooperation in international trade. Furthermore, countries always strive to show their dominance to the world and tend to employ violence to satire their selfish interests. All countries face a constant struggle to survive and will indiscriminately threaten others to pacify national interests. Territorial disputes are the best manifestation of conflicts due to self-interests. These disputes are still prevalent today, among two or more countries in a bid to preserve their sovereignty.

The quest for international peace and stability today is also a futile once because inequalities still prevail all over the world, and marginalised groups often take to violence to fight for their rights, or are in fact victims of violence why the majority. The truth of the matter is that, when countries came to a consensus on human rights, there was much ambiguity, and thus, we currently live in a world where international peace is practically impossible because governments themselves do not exactly know what rights to grant to their people, and as a result, there are factions who feel that they are deprived of their rights.  The sheer scale of inequalities in the world, from the racial discrimination in the US to the sexual discrimination in Nigeria to the vast income disparity plaguing both nascent and developed nations, conflicts are inevitable. Hence, international peace and stability is not totally attainable today.

However, the natural corollary to the aforementioned arguments would be for apologists to contend that while international peace is largely unattainable today, there is a hint of hope. This could be attributed to the fact that international cooperation has been happening at unprecedented levels, and hence countries might turn to negotiations instead of violence to settle disputes. Furthermore, the establishment of regional bodies could mean that countries will be less motivated to use force and instead settle their conflicts peacefully so that they can enjoy perennial benefits from that regional body. The notion of international peace may seem like a plausible one. However, one must also understand that some countries are only effective insofar as the countries are willing to accept aid and understand the significance of preserving peace in that region.

Nonetheless, one could still assert that with the rise in surveillance technology today, it would be easier for governments to spy on clandestine groups who are planning a war, thus making international peace possible.  The Patriot Act in the US also makes it legal for the government to access electronic accounts such as email accounts of suspected terrorists. However, to presume that this could lead to the complete establishment of world peace would be highly ignorant, because terrorist groups, for example, have bases all over the world and it would be technically impossible for technology such as drones to track down these terrorists.

The notion of international peace is a multi-faceted one. There have been numerous developments over the 21st century that proved hope for a better tomorrow. However, an indubitable fact of humanity is that we are all actually myopic individuals who only want to satisfy our own needs. Furthermore, there are still countries living in a dystopia, where violence is rife. Their governments have too many issues on the plate to resolve, and so there are still factions in those societies who feel that they are deprived of rights and thus turn to violence. It is naive to believe that war may one day become a thing of the past.

Rehabilitation, not punishment, should be the purpose of the justice system.’ Discuss.

Some argue that the punishment should be the purpose of the system. For the one who committed the crime, payback should be brought back to him/her via the justice system. This form of retributive punishment also marks an objective expression of abhorrence towards violations of law. The degree of punishment should be determined by the severity of the crime. For instance, petty crimes which are should involve a fine, counselling or a short 30-day jail term. While more serious crimes, which involve violent crimes like murder, rape and other aggravating crimes should incur many years or a life sentence. Punishment should clearly enforce the concrete message that crime is wrong and that criminals, who violate the law, will be brought to order. If there is no punishment, then it means there are no consequences for the wrong that has been committed. Under the causality principle, every cause has an effect, and every action should have a consequence. This should be especially true for the actions of criminals, which violate and detriment the laws or rules of society out of their own choices or decisions. Hence, punishment, being the thing that most clearly and concretely illustrates the abhorrence towards and payment or consequences of crime, should be the purpose of the justice system.

Critics may disagree with the above stand. If punishment is the purpose of the system, the only message it is sending out is that the justice system is an unforgiving one, which will ultimately lead to its own stagnation and demise. Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye will eventually make the whole world blind.” In a situation as that of a crime committed, with punishment, nobody benefits. What has happened has already happened. It is a lose-lose situation, not capable of bringing true comfort to the victims of crime, nor giving the perpetrator of the crime his/her appropriate closure. On the other hand, if there are developments towards rehabilitation, at the very least, with a forgiving mindset, the criminal is given the potential to possibly fit back into society and redeem oneself again, and that could be a possible benefit out of the entire situation. While punishment is still necessary to some extent to show that wrongdoings have consequences, but, in the end, can the criminal gain anything out of it? The practical answer is, No!

Defenders of punishment argue that punishment should be the purpose of the system, because it also has deterrent properties, and can subsequently best maintain order in society. With the presence of punishment, it prevents potential criminals from becoming actual criminals. Even for offenders are less likely to repeat their crimes again, as they become “Once bitten, twice shy”. Since prevention is better than cure, punishment, being able to prevent crime, thus best maintains law and order in society, and should be the purpose of the justice system. Specifically, with punishment, it spells out what is acceptable and unacceptable within the law, serving as the “threat” as to what will happen if the law is breached. Countries like Singapore that maintain a strict system of punishment have clearly demonstrated that punishment does help contain crime, particularly socially damaging crime like drug trafficking. Punishment should be the main purpose of justice. It is a simple and effective message.