INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D^

(Academy of Romanian Scientists, 3 Ilfov, 050044, Bucharest, Romania,

email: secretariat@aosr.ro)

Colonel (ret) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D^

(Academy of Romanian Scientists, 3 Ilfov, 050044, Bucharest, Romania,

email: secretariat@aosr.ro)

Abstract: From the moment people began to socialize, there was a need to

establish an order of behavior to which members of society could relate. Therefore,

the social order in a state reflects the way in which individuals and minority

groups coexist based on a set of norms, which form the legal order. It presupposes

a state of stability that is consolidated by norms, beliefs and values defended by

state and suprastate, as well as cultural institutions. Any essential defect in the

state of order positions society in a state of disorder, a state in which the state can

no longer impose compliance with the norms of coexistence or even generates such

social manifestations. The rule of law implies, more or less visibly, the

manifestation of the state as a political organization of society, implies the

permanent activation of institutional means of exercising coercion, both in the

private and public spheres of the person's "games", implies a permanent reference

to the legal order, an existence that conditions the establishment of the rule of law.

In turn, international law represents the legislative framework that regulates

relations between states or between persons or entities of different nationalities.

The defining texts for international law are treaties, conventions and governmental

agreements. As a rule, international law consists of international agreements or

conventions, as well as a set of generally recognized values, standards and

principles. After the end of the Cold War, instead of consolidating the international

behavior of states, based on the recognized principles of international law, some

behaviors became evident that ignored these principles, imposed their own

interests, even using force and violence. In relation to recognized international

law, such behavioral aspects have constituted and constitute forms evidence of

disorder, a consequence of disregard for behavioral norms of international law. A

new world order does not imply globalization on the system of unipolar power, but

reglobalization on a unitary system of institutions with an international vocation,

which would defend principles of international law, not interests of power.

Keywords: order, disorder, law, justice, power, peace, war, interest,

globalization, reglobalization, national, international.



Entitled

member

of

the

Academy

of

Romanian

Scientists,

email:

udrescumircea@yahoo.com.



Corresponding member of the Academy of Romanian Scientists, entitled member of the

Romanian Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology

(CRIFST) of the Romanian Academy, email: esiteanu@yahoo.com.

80

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

DOI

10.56082/annalsarscimilit.2026.2.80

Generalities.

For any state, the internal social order represents a syntagm of

maximum generalization, of a sociological nature, which covers the way in

which individuals and groups of individuals work together and coexist by

virtue of a set of agreed rights and obligations. It presupposes a state of

stability that is consolidated through norms, beliefs and values defended by

state and cultural institutions. Any essential defect in the state of order

positions society in a state of disorder, a state in which the state can no

longer impose compliance with the norms of coexistence or even generates

such social manifestations.

Social order and disorder are judged by the phrases rule of law and

legal order. The rule of law expresses the awareness by individuals, either

individually or collectively, of the prescriptive content of the command

given by the authors who produce legal norms, but also the awareness of the

fact that disregarding this norm or deviating from it falls under the coercive

power of bodies established precisely for the purpose of exercising control

and domination of state power over the individual and social groups. The

concept of legal order is not identified with that of rule of law, being, in

terms of scope and content, distinct. The rule of law implies, more or less

visibly, the manifestation of the state as a political organization of society,

implies the permanent activation of the institutional means of exercising

coercion, both in the private and public spheres of the person's "games",

implies the permanent reference to the legal order, an existence that

conditions the existence of the legal order. Under certain socio-political

determinations, the legal order can be overthrown, replaced, sometimes

brutally, with another legal order, without the state ceasing its existence as a

political organization of the given society. The legal order is a term similar

to that of the normative order. Through its content, the concept of public

order does not empower or allow or provide for a derogation, but effectively

imposes a must, mediating the coercive relationship between the state and

the person, especially with regard to repressive impunity. In turn,

international law represents the legislative framework that regulates

relations between states or between persons or entities of different

nationalities. The defining texts for international law are treaties,

conventions and governmental agreements. As a rule, international law

consists of international agreements or conventions, as well as a set of

generally recognized values, standards and principles, which do not have to

be explicitly stated in an agreement. International agreements can be

bilateral or multinational. Very often, international agreements are prepared

81

INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER

and negotiated within the framework of recognized international

1

organizations, such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, etc.

Findings. Appreciations. Opinions.

The recognized world order was possible from the moment when the

main states of the world made efforts to find generally acceptable solutions.

This is how international law was consolidated, having as its foundation the

Charter of Nations, the Security Council and the UN.

Any state, regardless of its size and economic power, had its own

interests which it protected on the basis of international law, its principles

applied to international relations.

All other states, which did not have the privileges and

responsibilities of those who were part of the Security Council, sought

solutions to their own disputes under relevant international law. They relied

on the international legal order, an order that all international actors

respected. The recognized international law was a law specific to the bipolar

world, and the behavioral order resulting from it guaranteed respect for the

spheres of influence. Military actions outside the spheres of influence were

carried out through the direct involvement of states within a sphere of

influence, under the protection of countries that were part of the bipolar

world, but also under the indirect influence of states in the other sphere of

influence. Thus, the USA carried out direct military actions in Vietnam,

Western countries favored those actions, while socialist countries indirectly

supported Vietnam and accused the US media of violating international law.

Similarly, the USSR acted militarily on Afghanistan, was supported by the

community of socialist states, while the capitalist states led by the USA

provided material and moral support to the opposing forces in Afghanistan.

Everything that happened in the world was resolved with the blessing of the

representative countries of the two political blocs, the USA and the USSR.

But even these states could not alone modify international law in the

direction of their own interests. When a state or a group of states pursued

the realization of their own interests in an immoral or illegal manner, they

automatically placed themselves outside the international legal order and did

not have the power to change it.

After the end of the Cold War, instead of consolidating the

international behavior of states, based on the recognized principles of

international law, some behaviors became evident that ignored these

principles, imposed their own interests, even using force and violence. In

relation to recognized international law, such behavioral aspects constituted

and constitute obvious forms of disorder, a consequence of disregarding

certain behavioral norms of international law. The situation became

¹Broadly on Wikipedia.

82

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

dramatic for the international environment in the conditions in which the

disorder was and continues to be supported even by countries that were part

of the Security Council, therefore they guaranteed a certain state of order. In

the absence of regulations to restore international law, dangerous precedents

are being created, which undermine international law, resulting in an

increasingly dangerous deviation from the state of normality.

International order requires a relationship to clear norms. When

these are not respected, conclusions are reached that deride even

international law, as a practical instrument of ordering, in the manner: "It is

a common opinion that international law has little effect on the behavior of

states." According to this view, international law is just a tool in the

diplomatic bag, which can be used to justify politically motivated actions. In

other words, many do not view international law as a law at all. This

statement about international law reflects the dominant approach in

international politics, known as realism. Realists present the world as one

dominated by states; it is anarchic in the sense that states, being sovereign

actors, do not recognize a higher authority. Realists also show that states act

in order to achieve their national interests, and the interaction between them

is regulated by the exercise of power (and only as a last resort, by the use of

military power)"². It seems to support an order that ignores regulation, with

an anarchic political geography, in which power generates a pack and alpha

male order.

The consequences of the first world war generated actions aimed at

structuring the international community, generating the emergence of an

organization with a universal vocation, the League of Nations. It established

a collective security system within which the violation of the security of one

of the members of society could be considered an act of war against all. As

such, the League of Nations, in an idealistic way, acted in the direction of

giving priority to the power of law in relation to the right of power. The

main problem on which it focused consisted of eliminating war from

relations between states, war being considered an illicit means of resolving

international disputes and achieving the national interests of states. This

conception took shape in 1928, through the signing of the Briand-Kellogg

Pact, which outlawed war between signatory states. However, the League of

Nations did not have the political support of the main countries of the world.

The USA boycotted the League of Nations from the beginning, although it

initially supported its establishment. Germany, a member state in 1926, left

the organization in 1933. Japan did the same. In 1937, Italy withdrew, and

the USSR in 1939. Since the states that remained in the organization had no

political relevance on the international level, this organization with an

2

Olivier Corten, La securite colective, un reve contrarie, study published in „le Monde

Diplomatique”, september 2005, pp. 45-46.

83

INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER

international vocation became a kind of form without substance. Instead of

world peace, plans of aggression were made, which accumulated in what

humanity has known as World War II.

Security and world order, both as derivatives of peace and as

derivatives of power, have not reached the situation of theoretical, political

and diplomatic compromise, but neither that of practical governance. In

such contexts, security and world order appear as contextual states, the

result of actions lacking coordination and predictability.

The unimaginable horrors specific to the second world war urged the

main victorious countries to consider the creation and consolidation of a

new organization of universal vocation, the UN, with a much more practical

action than its predecessor, the League of Nations. The efforts of the main

victorious states in the second world war materialized on June 25, 1945, in

San Francisco, when the Charter of Nations was signed by 51 states.

The purpose of the UN was to save future generations from the

scourge of war, which, twice in a generation, has caused humanity

incredible suffering, and its principles were considered generally valid, the

only aspects that fell outside the scope of the organization being the internal

affairs of states³. The objectives of the UN, based on the common interest of

the five victorious powers, consisted of: maintaining international peace and

security through effective measures to prevent and eliminate threats,

repressing any forms of aggression, developing friendly relations between

nations based on the principles of equal rights and self-determination of

peoples, resolving international problems of a social, economic, cultural,

humanitarian nature, etc. Thus, a world order was born that required

compliance with the following principles, which the UN monitored, as

follows: sovereign equality of member states, the right of peoples and

nations to self-determination, the peaceful settlement of disputes, refraining

from the threat of force and the use of force, non-intervention in the internal

affairs of states, etc. The UN monitored international peace through the

Security Council, composed of fifteen members, five of whom were

permanent members, each of whom had the right of veto, the five countries

being considered the most powerful victorious states.

The Security Council managed the world order after the Second

World War and is considered to have expressed the essence of that world

order on the occasion of the first Gulf War, in connection with which an

aggressor was nominated who was condemned by the international

community, was threatened by it, and the actions to restore the situations

before the aggression were triggered involved the Security Council. From

this moment on, the UN also entered into dissolution, the world order

3

Serge Bernstein, Pierre Mitza, Istoria secolului XX, vol. II, 1945-1973. Lumea între

război şi pace, All Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, pp.140-142.

84

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

specific to the Cold War starting to be defied. Thus, also in 1990 the UN

abandoned Somalia in a state of anarchy, the blue helmets sent to Bosnia-

Herzegovina are accused of partiality, the US actions in Kosovo (1999) and

the Second Gulf War are actions that no longer had the involvement of the

Security Council, but the unilateral will of the US. In turn, Russia carried

out actions of a war nature, ignoring the international community. That is

why increasingly frequent conclusions appear like: "Conceived as a means

of achieving international balance, the UN is rather transformed into an

instrument of the great powers and allows the justification of selective

military actions, while in other situations passivity prevails... rather the

organization is paralyzed by the opposition between the great powers...

which does not prevent the latter from acting without a mandate... The

institutional weakness of the UN only partly explains its relative failure"⁴.

In recent times, especially at the UN, but also in other international

bodies, there has been an emphasis on phrases such as individual security,

human security, security of conscience, etc. Even the UN Secretary General,

Kofi Annan, has shaped his speeches in the following manner: "...a new

understanding of the concept of security is required. Once synonymous with

the defense of territory against external attacks, today security requirements

have come to embrace the protection of communities and individuals from

internal violence. The need for an approach to security more focused on the

human being is reinforced by the danger that weapons of mass destruction

represent for humanity..."⁵or “We must also update our approach to what

peace and security mean. Peace means more than the absence of war.

Human security can no longer be understood exclusively in military terms.

Rather, it must encompass economic development, social justice,

environmental protection, democratization, disarmament, and respect for

human rights and the rule of law”⁶. This is an approach that paves the way

for undermining the basic principles of international law of non-threat with

force, non-interference in the internal affairs of another state, peaceful

coexistence of states, mutual respect of states as agents of international life,

and leaves the way open to arguing for military intervention by some states,

from the standpoint of humanitarian rights, beyond the rights of states that

are forced to endure military aggression.

The process of degradation of the UN was also accelerated by the

efforts of some regional security bodies. Thus, the OSCE, an organization

that operated in Europe under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, in the

context of the political situation in the former Yugoslavia, tried to recognize

4

Olivier Corten, La securite colective, un reve contrarie, study published in „le Monde

Diplomatique”, september 2005.

⁵United Nations Secretary – General Kofi Annan. Milenium Report, Chapter 3, pp.43-44.

6

Kofi Annan, Towards a Culture of Peace, available at http://www.unesco.org/op2/letress,

accessed on 30.05.2026.

85

INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER

at the political level the fact that the situation of ethnic minorities is an

international problem and not one that is the exclusive responsibility of

national states. The UN did not react to the fact that this violated a basic

principle of its functioning, non-interference in the internal affairs of a

member state. It was not long before the OSCE began to be accused of

political partisanship, of treating minorities unequally, especially after it was

unable to limit the tragedies in the Yugoslav space.

The ineffectiveness of the OSCE was also proven when the Russian

Federation ignored the OSCE requirements regarding the situation in

Moldova and Georgia, so that Russia could defy world public opinion

regarding the situation in Ukraine, citing as an example the military

interventions of the US and some NATO states in Libya and Syria. The UN

and regional organizations established on the basis of the UN Charter can no

longer answer questions like: How can these organizations ensure the

territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of a member state? What

confidence can small and medium-sized states have in the guarantees

assumed by organizations of universal vocation, since powerful states

impose their national policy by force? Since these organizations

demonstrate that they have become non-functional, it is indubitable that the

world order established on their basis is also outdated.

NATO emerged as a political-military organization under Article 51

of the United Nations Charter, which enshrines the right of states to

individual or collective self-defense. Since 1991, the year the Warsaw Pact

was officially dissolved, world public opinion expected NATO to suffer the

same fate. But this did not happen, NATO expanding to the vicinity of the

borders of the Russian Federation. Becoming a military instrument at the

disposal of the USA, through its discretionary involvement in different areas

of the world, political controversies began to arise within the organization.

As such, the EU is no longer willing to follow without political discernment

the military actions generated by the US, although ideas for transforming

NATO are being heard such as: "...in a world characterized by globalization,

we must not only review our approach to the economy, technology, energy

or culture. We must also review our approach to security... Because, in turn,

threats to security have become globalized.

September 11 is a case in point. This truth also holds true for failed

states – states that, lacking strong governance, collapse into disorder and

violence… For we have seen that failed states can quickly become a threat

to international security, either by exporting drugs or by harboring terrorists.

Last but not least, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction… What

should an effective security strategy look like? First of all, any security

strategy today must be a strategy of engagement. ..Second, today we must

look at security in a holistic manner… In an era where security challenges

have

become

multidimensional,

our

responses

must

also

be

86

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

multidimensional….. any viable security strategy today must be a strategy

of teamwork, institutionally. No single institution, no single nation,

possesses all the means necessary for effective security management. Only

through inter-institutional cooperation will the full range of instruments be

available. ..Fourthly, an engagement strategy requires not only a variety of

instruments, but also patience in their application. If we want to change

things for the better, we must do more than provide military security…a

truly effective engagement strategy, one that has a lasting impact, must be a

strategy firmly grounded in values. Democracy and freedom, human rights

and religious tolerance are basic principles, which we must never

compromise….One thing is clear: to ensure our security today, we must

engage..”⁷but such strategies fundamentally transform NATO from a

defensive organization into an offensive, aggressor organization, by

violating all the principles of UN international law. Who can appeal to

international law, since NATO acted without a UN mandate in Kosovo,

Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

To the question: What has been chosen from the known world

order?, most answers are categorical: Almost nothing. Appealing to the

principles of world order, it is easily seen that: the principle of renouncing

force and the threat of force in international relations has become a chimera,

since the USA and other important countries take into account the need for

preventive war against terrorism and in cases of serious violations of

democracy and human rights; the peaceful settlement of international

disputes, a principle organically linked to that of renouncing force, since

some states consecrate the use of force in defense of national interests; non-

intervention in matters within the national competence of a state has become

a principle contested by states that consecrate their right to surgically

intervene in the internal affairs of another state, since human and minority

rights are being attempted to become international rights, under the

jurisdiction of privileged states; the equality of rights of states has become

anachronistic, since one state considers itself more equal than all others, and

other states consider themselves more equal than other zonal and regional

ones; the right of peoples to decide their own destinies, sovereignty and

independence are principles that are closely correlated with all the others

before, which, being ignored, mean that they too no longer have legal

substance.

Given that international security is considered to be subject to threats

in the following areas: political - internal political instability, state

bankruptcy,

terrorism

and

human

rights

abuses,

economic

-

impoverishment, the growing gap between rich and poor states, piracy, the

7

Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,Speech by NATO „Addressing Global

Insecurity”, at the Diplomatic Academy in Viena, 2005.

87

INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER

impact of an economically unstable neighboring state, social -

minority/majority conflicts, organized crime, illegal trade, uncontrolled

migration, diseases, etc.⁸, anyone who considers themselves called to defend

it, without reference to binding international law.

After the collapse of the USSR, it was believed that the bipolar

world would transition into a unipolar world, in which international law

would be defended predominantly by the USA. However, the USA and

other NATO countries have moved to solving international problems

ignoring the principles of international law. The USA has declared that it is

entitled to support its global interests, for which it also has the appropriate

military forces. However, the USA has manifested itself as a hegemonic

power, not as a country that watches over international law from the

position of a leading country. As such, some EU countries have begun to

consider the actions of the USA as exceeding generally acceptable political

provisions. Moreover, the political authorities of Russia have declared that

Russia is also adapting its military strategy to the principles of preventive

attacks⁹, and the consequences have already been seen in the actions in

Ukraine.

In turn, China has also declared that its economic system obliges it to

declare that it will promote certain global interests, just like the other great

powers of the world. From such declarations and actions, it seems that the

new world order is being shaped, an order that is to divide the countries of

the world into political-military alliances, which call into question world

peace. A world order in which it seems that "the multitude of changes and

trends...indicate that an accelerated, segmented and unequal process of

globalization is taking place...a fractured global order."¹⁰, which resembles a

game in disarray, in which some players no longer follow the rules by which

they started, everything seems confused. Precisely for these reasons, some

authors consider that “At the beginning of the 21st century, we seem to be

returning to the liberal international order, in which the powers had mixed

motivations… In 2001, the largest rich economies are a number of seven,

the G7, with Russia on the waiting list to form the G8. The difference? In

1914, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Russia and the USA were the Great Powers. And in 2001, the G8 includes

Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States

plus Russia. Canada has taken the place of the defunct Austro-Hungarian

Empire. The United States is much stronger, both economically and

militarily, than Britain was, as the declining hegemon of the international

8

Parliamentary oversight of the security sector. Principles, mechanisms and practices,

Inter-Parliamentary Union, Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces,

Lausanne, 2004, p.16.

⁹Rusia ameninţă cu atacuri preventive, article, Ziua Newspaper, no. 2985, april 9 2004.

¹⁰Martin Sorrell, Branding the New Era, Foreign policy, summer 2000, pp. 61-62.

88

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

order, in 1914”¹¹. But now the world order must take into account China,

which seems to have surpassed the US in terms of economic development.

The United Nations (UN) Millennium Declaration, adopted by the

United Nations General Assembly at its 54th session, reaffirmed the

fundamental principles that should underlie the international legal order,

principles also supported by the OSCE Summit in Istanbul in 2000, but

which, unfortunately, have begun to be ignored, making it impossible for

the states of the world to have any reference points for managing relations

between them. As such, assessments such as: "Despite these positions

adopted by the UN and the OSCE, in recent years there has been an attempt

to diminish, even deny, the importance of respecting the principle of non-

interference in the internal affairs of states; moreover, it is argued that, in

the current historical conditions, another principle could be imposed,

namely that of the right to interfere in these internal affairs. Specifically,

such a right could refer to the protection of human rights, which, in the

current conditions, would go beyond the jurisdiction of states and would

come under international responsibility; hence, the postulation of a right to

interfere in humanitarian issues"¹².

When the most important countries in the world, the USA and

Russia, disregard the Charter of the United Nations, when the UN is ignored

even by the countries that should defend and involve it, other countries can

ask themselves questions about the relevance of the principles of

international law. Noting deviations from a deeply regulated conduct,

countries can ask themselves: "can such a fundamental norm, such as the

prohibition of the use of force, be modified by the type of practice of states

shown, for example, by the United States over the last two decades? In order

to be able to state that it is possible, we must demonstrate that a large and

representative majority of states agree with the American practice of these

last years. As a general assessment, it is clear that there is no consensus

within the international community to follow the Americans in abolishing

the prohibition of the use of force as a practice or policy."¹³NATO's armed

intervention in Kosovo, the armed interventions in Iraq, Libya, Syria and

Ukraine were carried out without the express authorization of the Security

Council which, internationally, is the one that holds the "monopoly of

force", just as domestically "only the state holds the monopoly of force".

With such examples, the assertions of increasing disorder internationally

become true. The Kosovo case shocked the world order, but it did not

11

Paul Hirst, Război şi putere în secolul 21. Statul, conflictul military şi sistemul

internaţional, Antet Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001, p. 57, 60 and 121.

12

Constantin Vlad, Relaţii internaţionale politico-diplomatice contemporane, Fundaţia

României de Mâine Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001, p. 89.

13

Marcelo G. Kohen, Is the US practice of use of force changing international law, artcile

published in World Editorial and International Law, January 2003, vol. II, no.1, p. 9.

89

INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER

prevent separatist regions such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia from

invoking it as a precedent, nor did it prevent Russia from recognizing their

independence and it is not too far from justifying the Russian-Georgian

conflict of August 2008.

All these examples demonstrate the enormous risks to European and

global security, since "The new American doctrine of preventive self-

defense undoubtedly constitutes an attempt to overturn the discipline of the

use of force contained in the United Nations Charter, in particular in Article

2, paragraph 4 thereof. Given the imperative and truly fundamental nature of

this last norm, on which the entire international system is based, its

observance should mean either the transition to a new historical phase,

marked by the re-legitimization of war as an instrument of international

relations and the collapse of the principle of sovereign equality of states, or

constitute an international crime"¹⁴. Inspired by a phrase of the US President

"We will cooperate with other nations to challenge, control and block the

efforts of our enemies to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter

of common sense and self-defense, America will act against any such

threats that arise, before they are fully established" the strategy of

preventive war resulting from the US National Security Strategy, 2002,

enshrines the following important directions of action on the international

level "direct and continuous action, with all means of state power; the

immediate target is transnational terrorism; the threat must be destroyed

before it reaches the US; if necessary the US will act alone; the US will act

preemptively, in self-defense; the US will compel states to cease

sponsoring, supporting or harboring terrorists."¹⁵

Distrust in the recognized world order is increasingly evident. The

states of the world consider the current situation to be worrying, since the

USA and Russia publicly declare their acceptance of preventive war, when

they consider that their global interests are endangered. If the USA and

Russia declare and act in this direction, the same states wonder whether

preventive war, in certain conflict situations, cannot become a legitimate

war for other states, and how such a phenomenon is reconciled with the

principles of state sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in

internal affairs, renunciation of the threat and use of force in international

relations, etc. Any state can become vulnerable in conditions in which

another state can justify its aggressive actions for reasons of self-defense

against a state considered a sponsor of terrorism or that has deficiencies in

terms of human and minority rights. As a consequence, the radicalization of

the demands of some minorities towards the state order, radicalization

14

Fabio Marcelli, Gli contro il diritto internationale liliceita della guerra preventive,

„Giano, Pace, ambiente, problemi globali” Magazine, no. 42/2002.

15

Paul Hirst, Război şi putere în secolul 21. Statul, conflictul militar şi sistemul

internaţional, Antet Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001, pp.14-16.

90

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

suggested and supported by state or non-state actors, can constitute

legitimizations of the use of force by other interested states. The military

conflicts in Iraq, Libya, even in Ukraine, were justified by the need to

protect vulnerable minorities, but minorities that used sophisticated

weaponry in imposing their demands in relations with the institutions of a

national state, internationally recognized, but considered by the states that

became aggressors as a state necessarily led by a tyrant. But such scenarios

can become viral, since there are no states that do not contain recognized

national minorities, which can at any time become dissatisfied. Such wars

become at the same time just and unjust. Just, from the point of view of the

states that defend the interests of some minorities, and unjust, from the point

of view of the state subjected to aggression and of the states that relate the

state of affairs to the world legal order. From the point of view of the

international legal order, a war is just if it is waged for self-defense and has

as an adjacent purpose the restoration of international order, but in all

situations the current international legal order does not recognize war as a

means of settling disputes between states, regardless of the motivation.

Consequently, since wars are multiplying, they constitute a means worthy of

condemnation in accordance with the UN Charter, but on which the Security

Council does not pronounce, it means that the states of the world hardly

relate to the established principles of justice, law and legitimacy in interstate

relations.

The UN General Assembly Resolutions, the Declaration on the

Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Internal Affairs of States and on the

Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty (1965) and the

Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly

Relations and Cooperation among States (1970) enshrine the principles of

state sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, the defense of

independence and sovereignty, the strengthening of friendship and

cooperation among states and condemn actions such as: interference of a

coercive nature or threat to the sovereignty of a state or to its political,

economic or cultural components, the organization, support, financing or

tolerance of subversive or terrorist activities with the aim of overthrowing

the political regime in a state, the use of force with the aim of preventing

peoples fighting for national liberation from realizing their right to political

self-determination, the use or encouragement of the use of direct or indirect

coercive means, including economic or political, actions that endanger basic

principles of international order. international.

Conclusions

The post-Cold War world is characterized by two trends: increasing

insecurity and the ineffectiveness of the international legal system. The

increasing insecurity is due to the freedom assumed by some states to use

91

INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER

military force to impose their own interests, and the ineffectiveness of the

international legal system is due to the defiant manner in which the

countries responsible for the functioning of this system use the right of veto.

Humanity feels the need not for globalization with a unipolar organization,

but for a reglobalization, in which new international institutions bear the

responsibility of watching over international law. Now it is not communism

and capitalism that are at the origin of international disorder, but states that

disregard the principles of international law. Beyond any state interests,

there is a need for principles of international law to be promoted and

defended.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

VLAD C., Relaţii internaţionale politico-diplomatice contemporane,

Fundaţia României de Mâine Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001;

MARCELLI F., Gli contro il diritto internationale liliceita della guerra

preventive, in „Giano. Pace, ambiente, problemi globali” Magazine,

no. 42/2002;

CORTEN O., La securite colective, un reve contrarie, study published in le

Monde Diplomatique, september 2005;

KOHEN M. G., Is the US practice of use of force changing international

law, article published in World Editorial and International Law,

January 2003, vol. II, no.1;

SORRELL M., Branding the New Era, Foreign policy, summer 2000;

HIRST P., Război şi putere în secolul 21. Statul, conflictul militar şi

sistemul internaţional, Antet Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001;

BERNSTEIN S., MITZA P., Istoria secolului XX, vol. II, 1945-1973.

Lumea între război şi pace, All Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998;

Ziua NewsPaper, no. 2985, april 09, 2024.

92