Sahand Sanie

Hypocritical Usage: A Recipe for Global Injustice

Introduction

Hypocritical usage: a recipe for global injustice. Analyze how powerful states hypocritically use state sovereignty to justify invasions, violate international law, and evade global jurisdiction, hindering international justice. US-Iraq, Russia-Ukraine.

Abstract

State sovereignty is integral to the international system; without it, there would be no nation-state. In this paper, I analyse the current condition of state sovereignty and the way it is used selectively by powerful states to proceed with foreign policies that often violate international law. This selective usage gives rise to a phenomenon I call “hypocritical usage.” Hypocritical usage refers to the significant role of state sovereignty in allowing powerful states to invade while also avoiding jurisdiction over multilateral institutions (e.g., the UN, the ICJ). To prove this phenomenon, I have decided to use a case analysis of two cases: the US-Iraq invasion and the Russia-Ukraine invasion. I break down hypocritical usage into four stages: initiation, justification, violations, and avoidance. After conducting this analysis, I discuss the implications of hypocritical usage on the international scale, highlighting it as a hindrance to international law’s legitimacy and a growing concern in a polarized world.

Review

The proposed paper, "Hypocritical Usage: A Recipe for Global Injustice," addresses a critically important and highly relevant topic concerning the integrity of the international system and the selective application of international law. The abstract clearly articulates the central concept of "hypocritical usage," defining it as the dual role of state sovereignty in enabling powerful states to engage in military interventions while simultaneously allowing them to evade accountability from multilateral institutions. This phenomenon, as described, speaks directly to ongoing debates about power, justice, and the rule of law in international relations, making the paper's overarching thesis both timely and compelling. The author's ambition to dissect these inconsistencies offers significant potential to contribute to our understanding of global power dynamics. The methodological approach, employing a comparative case analysis of the US-Iraq and Russia-Ukraine invasions, provides a strong empirical foundation for demonstrating the proposed "hypocritical usage." The breakdown of this phenomenon into four distinct stages—initiation, justification, violations, and avoidance—offers a clear and systematic analytical framework, promising a structured and rigorous examination of the chosen cases. However, the abstract could briefly elaborate on the theoretical lens or primary disciplinary approach (e.g., legal, IR theory, historical) guiding this analysis, which would provide greater insight into the expected depth and nature of the arguments. While the selected cases are highly illustrative, a brief acknowledgment within the paper regarding their representativeness of "powerful states" or potential nuances between the two contexts could further strengthen the analysis. The paper's discussion of the implications of "hypocritical usage" on the international scale, particularly its role as a "hindrance to international law’s legitimacy" and a "growing concern in a polarized world," underscores its potential normative contribution. This direct engagement with the consequences of selective sovereignty is valuable. To further enhance the paper's impact, the conclusion could potentially offer some preliminary thoughts on pathways or mechanisms that might challenge or mitigate "hypocritical usage," thereby moving beyond mere identification of the problem. Overall, this is a very promising submission that tackles a crucial contemporary issue with a well-defined conceptual framework and relevant case studies, holding strong potential to significantly enrich scholarly discourse on international law and global justice.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.