World Order Legal Studies

World order is fundamentally just world peace. A world full of peace would mean that each individual would have a fair go at life and have a potential to have success. Throughout history, war and conflict have denied the world of its peace between nations.

The rise in terrorism around the world, the inequality between the rich and the poor within and between nations, the push for globalisation and free trade, and the growing awareness of human rights globally have all stimulated the need for world order.North Korean Missile Crisis The North Korean Crisis of 2013 was a rise of pressure between nation-states which included North and South Korea, U. S. and Japan that began after North Korea had launched a satellite. Following the launch, arguments were instantly created because at the request of the United States, the Security Council of the United Nations approved new sanctions against the North Korea under the accusation that the launch was in fact a test of a ballistic missile.

The launch surprised many.Diverse world media including China, Russia and Japan reported that North Korea had entered the ranks of the countries able to manufacture and launch satellites in the world. The North American Aerospace Defence Command reported that both the satellite and the launcher and space debris "did not come to be factors threatening the security of the United States". The North Korean government said the launch was solely to put a satellite into orbit, denying that it was a military trial.

On January 22 the North Korean government proceeded to register it with the United Nations stating that it is an observation satellite designed to monitor the Earth's crops, forest resources and natural disasters, having a nodal period of 95 minutes 25 seconds. However, most of the nations of the world condemned the action, even China, which by a military pact required defending North Korea in the event of aggression. In addition, historical rivals the United States, Japan and South Korea claimed that it was a military trial for war, with the sole mission of provoking political opponents.After launch, the North Koreans celebrated the event. The next day, North Korea held a massive celebration in the square in Pyongyang to publicize how successfully the operation had been carried out.

After the launch, at the request of Japan, the U. S. and South Korea, the Security Council of the UN held a meeting to discuss the event and as a result, issued a presidential statement in which the 15 council members felt that the launch had been a ballistic missile test. Finally, on January 22, 2013, it was concluded to punish North Korea for the launch of the satellite, which the Security Council considered a ballistic missile test.For their part, North Korea denounced that the Security Council sanctions were imposed under the sponsorship of the United States to disrupt the North's economic and technological development, saying the rocket technology used to launch satellites is the same as used for ballistic missiles. Following the Security Council sanctions U.

N. , on the January 23 the government of North Korea announced the continuation of their tests not only devoted to missiles, but clearly with an effort to facilitate nuclear weapons purposes.Moreover, North Korea directly threatened the U. S.

, announcing that they could launch long-range missiles against that country. The North Korean government accused the United States at the United Nations of leading a "unprecedented movement against North" with new sanctions and impeding Pyongyang's efforts to develop its economy. State television also said that "this has proven once again that the North must defend its sovereignty by itself. It has become clear that there can be no demilitarization of the Korean peninsula before the world has denuclearized” Invasion of IraqIn March 2003 the United States government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the US insisted it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later.

Because the UN Security Council refused to endorse the US-UK invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003, Washington and London hoped to ignore the UN and operate with a free hand in the country.But a fierce Iraqi resistance, persistent economic and political problems, and continuing international criticism forced the US-UK to seek international partners for their enterprise, including assistance from the UN. A debate ensued between those who thought that the UN could be the wedge for internationalization and US-UK withdrawal and those who thought a UN presence would only discredit the world body. Following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1483 two months after the war, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed a Special Representative for Iraq and the UN assumed some small responsibilities here.

Many critics warned, though, that the UN should not be identified with the illegal war and occupation. In August 2003, a massive bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad confirmed the critics' fears, killing fifteen UN staff including the Special Representative. The UN then pulled out of Iraq and kept its distance, but in February 2004, under heavy US pressure, the UN agreed to send a mission to the country, to help construct a new interim government.Again, Washington kept the UN's political role weak, while seeking legitimacy from the UN. After the establishment of an interim government in June, the US pressured the UN to take a larger role in planning national elections, but security dangers and reluctance by the Secretary General and UN staff kept the UN role to a minimum.

Now, as the situation spirals more and more out of control, Washington is citing the worsening humanitarian crisis as reason enough for the UN to step in.But critics say the US intends to use the UN to push Iraqis to accept US-imposed "benchmarks" for reconciliation, including a controversial oil law and “debaathification”. The new Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, seems to be more pliant to the US and more supportive of greater UN involvement in Iraq. Despite strong opposition from the UN Staff Council – which represents 25,000 UN workers – the Security Council succumbed to US and UK pressure and voted on August 10, 2007 to expand the UN's role in Iraq. Only if the US occupation ends can there be a substantial – and politically viable – UN role.