Forum 1 Please read the article in Moodle and post based on the following: Do you agree with the statement below? Why or why not? Should a state have ultimate auhtority (the final say) in its sovereighnty? Why or why not? The rule of law principle on the international level —- particularly in the area of conflict resolution — is being undermined by States failing to adhere to their international obligations, along with the selective enforcement and exploitation of existing frameworks and mechanisms.

The rule of law refers to the mechanisms or practices that uphold the equality of all the citizens before the law. The law is guided by various principles which include; accountability law, equality of all people before the law, the supremacy of the law which all people are expected to adhere to. The rule of law aims at accessing justice through the judicial system, ensuring transparency, and non-discrimination in the country.

Step-by-step explanation

agree or disagree 

I agree with the statement that the rule of law on the international level is undermined by states. This case has been evident especially in conflict resolution. States tend to ignore the international rule of law principle and follow their own principle and objectives. At the international level, the Hague for example has the obligation of resolving conflicts among member states. However, it turns out that many countries do not adhere to the guidelines of the court. A good example is a case in Africa between Somalia and Kenya. The Hague was involved in settling the conflict between the neighboring countries. The two countries had a conflict in determining the boundary. The Hague settled the conflict by declaring the border to be part of Somalia. Kenya could not adhere to the rule and go to the border, set their military to safeguard the boundary. This is an example among other examples of states that do not respect international rule of law. They fail to respect the laid obligations set at the international level.

Should a country have ultimate authority? 

In my opinion, a state should not have a final say in its sovereignty. The reason behind my argument is this; Every state relies on other states in one way or the other. The geographical factor should not be considered to distinguish humanity, The world is a small global village. The states need to understand that for peaceful co-existence, every state must learn to respect other states in the world. When states learn to uphold other states, their sovereignty will not be a reason for the states to desire to have a final say. In case of a conflict with other states, concerned states should be ready to adhere to international principles on the rule of law. The states should be ready to surrender before international law. They should not consider their law as most supreme. This is the quest for any just nation in the world. Hence the need for every state to adhere to international rule of law.