International Relations -Political Science the

International Relations -Political Science The issue of the international law, of the human rights, and of international justice is one of the most debated areas of discussion in the world right now. This is largely due to the fact that the 9/11 terrorist attacks raised a different set of questions related to the issue of human rights as opposed to the right of self-defense.

The facilities from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are relevant for pointing out the fact that there is a need for a coordination of factors that would enable the U.S. Administration to better deal with the issue of terrorism. At the same time however, human right are the doctrine of the new century; in this sense, the prison in Guantanamo poses serious concerns related to the respect and practice of human rights and there are voices which support the idea that Guantanamo must be closed down.

Taking into consideration the evidence, the arguments and counterarguments, it is indeed obvious that the base in Guantanamo must and should be closed down. The history of the Guantanamo Bay area is rather old and it includes acts from 1903 when the United States signed a lease contract with Cuba that would enable the U.S. To use part of the Cuban territory in order to ensure protection for both the U.S. And for the Cuban land (PBS, 2006).

However, as the decades pasted, the facilities came to be used as a place for detainees of Cuban and Haitian origin that broke the law. Finally, the issue of terrorism is now considered as one of the most important matters of the international scene and the United States views it as a reason which would excuse any type of measure undertaken at the legal level as well as at the practical one.

Therefore, the country is today in a rather delicate position, that of trying to cater both for the need of security and for the obligation to respect human rights. In order to understand the precise need and obligation to establish a solution that would enable the consideration of both aspects of the problem, it is important to place them in the current context of international politics from the perspective of the theories available.

In this sense, the issue of security has become an essential matter for the world's community, while human rights represents the new doctrine which must at all time be taken into account. Security matters for the national state, regardless of the period under discussion. During the Cold War, the need for security was stringent and governed foreign politics (Kissinger, 1994). The bipolar world made it impossible for administration throughout the world not to take into account the threats facing the two poles of power.

However, the neorealist view on the era described the issue of security as being the most important aim of the national policy (Nye, 2005). At the same time, following the detente attempts of the late 60s and the 70s, neorealists believed that a certain shift in the direction of foreign policy was determined by the need of the state to insure a security environment rather than one characterized by the struggle for power, as the realist theory suggested.

Therefore, from this point-of-view, that period marked a new beginning in the way in which security politics was perceived and conducted. It was perceived as a matter of deep consideration and it was conducted with all means possible, including those means that at times defied the internationally agreed upon rules of state conduct. This attitude could be one explication for the transformation of the Guantanamo Bay area into one of the most feared and controversial places in the world.

The issue of international law as the framework which governs the foreign activities of the state is considered today to be one of the most important matters to influence the conduct of the state. Starting with the 19th century, it was considered to be proper means to regulate affairs between countries. The League of Nations and afterwards the United Nations tried to impose laws that would prevent state abuses as well as chaos in the international society (Schlesinger, 2003).

However, the failure of the League of Nations, followed by a limited possibility of the UN to act in cases that included the defense of human rights determined a rather negative reaction to this chapter of international law. However, it must be pointed out the fact that the law in regard to human rights and its applicability is of rather recent date.

Especially after the end of the Cold War could the international community truly focus on the issue of human rights, on the doctrine of the humanitarian intervention in the case in which human rights are seriously breached (Russbach, 1995). Therefore it can be said that indeed human rights are a subject of debate inside the international community for a relatively short period of time.

Despite this fact however, it is important to take into account the fact that following the Cold War, the progress in the area of human rights has been immense. The genocides in Rwanda, the hunger in Somalia, the Yugoslavian wars, the crises in the former soviet republics, as well as the dramatic situations from the refugee camps in Sudan or the Palestinian territories have all drawn the attention on the need to reconsider the matter of the human rights as a crucial aspect of international politics.

From this point-of-view, it was considered in the early 1990s that any intervention could have been justified by invoking human rights. However, there were situations in which this reason was not taken into account such as Rwanda and even Sudan. Nonetheless, the constant talk about this issue made the people aware of the important of the new doctrine for the world we live in. The issue of Guantanamo Bay and the discussions surrounding it is related to more aspects.

However, there are convincing arguments to conclude that from the perspective of the international law and in relation to the need for security, a solution can be found to close down the area and maintain the level of security its existence offered. From a legal perspective, the situation in Guantanamo is undetermined.

Taking into consideration the fact that "Washington pays $4,085 a year in rent for the 29,000 acres of cactus-studded hills and pristine deepwater bay" it does not represent the territory of the Cuban state; therefore there is no Cuba legal jurisdiction on the area (Selsky, 2007). At the same time though, it is not part of the U.S. territory either in which case the courts in the U.S. have no jurisdiction either on the activities that are going on the Guantanamo premises.

Therefore, it can be argued that the legal situation in the area is unclear and lacks any official control. Taking this matter into consideration the situation appears obvious that a clarification is needed. The Guantanamo Bay area is very important for the process of justice that is taking place in the name of the "war on terror" because it allows for abuses to take place. In this sense, the area is being used "wherever the U.S.

seeks to prosecute, whether at home or through proxies in countries such as Jordan, Syria and Egypt, where al-Qaeda suspects are being held, often in brutal conditions" (Silverman, 2004). Since 2002 when the first prisoners came to Guantanamo, there were heated discussions over the right of the accused to be defended and to know the charges he is brought.

However, aside from the fact that there was little effort made to resolve this issue, the American state decided that "that executive branch officials were the sole judges of whether there was sufficient basis to hold persons as enemy combatants" (Treatment of U.S. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, 2005). The Supreme Court did not share the same view; nonetheless, the controversy remains over the possibility of the American state to hold prisoners without trial and without ensuring the minimum human rights protection.

Indeed, the legal limbo which best characterizes the situation in Guantanamo is rather hard to define. Nonetheless there are some basic aspects which must be taken into consideration. First and foremost, regardless of their origin and nationality, the inmates in Guantanamo are human beings whose rights are being infringed. These rights include the right to a trial, the right to a fair trial, and most importantly the right to a proper defense. These rights are not considered by the U.S.

Secondly, Guantanamo Bay cannot be legally defined and under these circumstances all sorts of abuses take place, which in the end affect the condition of the inmates. Thirdly, there is the issue of the compliance with the international law, which as stated before represents the most important framework for the world we live in and for the reality we are creating each day.

In general, "Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state's armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war" (Human Rights Watch, 2002) the fact that the U.S. fails to consider the inmates as war prisoners, and does not allow them to defend themselves against the charges brought, is a complete breach of the Geneva Conventions.

At the same time, statements such as Donald Rumsfeld's consideration that the prisoners of Afghanistan are unlawful combatants and do not enter the category of prisoners of war is simply a means of establishing a legal niche that would allow the State Department to increase the number of inmates and to limit the degree under which the practices from Guantanamo must face the international law scrutiny.

All these issues taken into account, it can be said that the matter of the legal status of Guantanamo inmates represents a human rights' issue and it must be considered the degree in which this attitude tends to affect the United States. There is in fact no legal justification or interpretation of the Geneva Conventions that would suggest the fact that the actions taking place in Guantanamo are lawful.

From the perspective of the basic human rights, these are not met and they pose serious questions over the legality or justification of the actions undergone by the U.S. In Guantanamo. Another important aspect that must be taken into consideration when trying to establish the feasibility and the obligation for the area to close down is the image of the United States.

Since the early days of our history the American people and in general the American democracy have been widely viewed as one of the most important democratic countries in the world precisely because they offered the sense of equality and respect for all human beings, regardless of origin and nationality. However, at this moment the Guantanamo Bay example stands in complete contrast with the ideas promoted for more than 200 years throughout the world. In this sense, Colin Powell argued that "Guantanamo has become a major, major problem..

In the way the world perceives America and if it were up to me I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow but this afternoon.. And I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system" (Reuters, 2007). Also, another high ranked official considered that the existence of Guantanamo may pose a threat to the image of the U.S.

In this sense, he considered that "from the standpoint of how it reflects on us that it's been pretty damaging" (Al Jazeera, 2008). Therefore aside from the legal aspects there is also the matter of the image the U.S. creates for itself. The facilities in Guantanamo represent an issue that could jeopardize the position of the U.S. As a fighter for freedom and as a supporter of the respect for human rights throughout the world.

The issues related to the legal matters concerning the Guantanamo prisoners are facts that are rather hard to understand by the public because they entangle particular matters related to international law. However, the negative image of the world in respect to the U.S. is widely determined by the constant news of the psychological problems detainees from the area suffer throughout their detention time. In this sense, there have been massive reports on the physical condition of prisoners as well as guards.

Concerning the latter "the guards at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp are the "overlooked victims" of America's controversial detention facility in Cuba, according to a psychiatrist who has treated some of them. In some cases, a tour of duty at the camp has made guards suicidal and prompted a variety of psychiatric symptoms, from depression and insomnia to flashbacks." (Randerson, 2008) Therefore, it is obvious that there are more people involved in the entire situation.

On the one hand, there is the matter of the guards who are not only the witnesses of the abuses that take place but are also sometimes forced to treat the inmates in an abusive manner. In terms of the treatment of the prisoners, they are clearly treated inhumanly. There are reports suggesting that the means of interrogation are taking the physical endurance capabilities to extremes.

In this sense, there are images that portray the techniques used to intimidate inmates "including a female interrogator grabbing a detainee's genitals and bending back his thumbs, another where a prisoner was gagged with duct tape and a third where a dog was used to intimidate a detainee who later was thrown into isolation and showed signs of "extreme psychological trauma." (USA Today, 2004). This action can only worsen the image that the Western world has on the U.S. At the moment.

From this point-of-view, the Abu Ghraib scandal came to strengthen the belief that the U.S. is practicing all sorts of techniques of interrogation that are degrading and insulting for the rights of the individual, for his own identity. Indeed, it is rather hard to determine a possible solution to the issue at hand. This is largely due to the fact that there is more than one group of interests at stake. On the one hand, there are the supporters of a hard-line approach on the matter.

From this perspective, the "war on terror" is a goal which justifies the means. The security of the United States in their view is dependent on the way in which the U.S. will be able to gather information and acquire new leads in the hunt for the terrorist networks around the world, in particular the Al Qaeda network. However, the matter of security cannot be viewed from a simple one-dimensional perspective.

Security represents more than the hunt for the visible enemies; it also demands good relations with the world around us. From the perspective of the recent scandals related to the Abu Ghraib prison and the constant problem represented by the Guantanamo Bay area, it may be that in time, the U.S. will lose its aura of the savior of democracy as long as it is not willing to practice what it teaches.

On another point, the issue of human rights, as stated before is crucial for the world we live in today. It represents the mark of an era of civilization where the human life counts. However, the recent history has proven otherwise. At the same time though the United States must be a beacon of democracy and of the respect for human rights.

But the fact that the United States takes little regard on the matters concerning the Geneva Conventions and on the activities of the International Criminal Court is relevant for pointing out that a change must take place. It should start with closing Guantanamo Bay. There are several points that must be taken into consideration should such a solution be viable. First, there are those who argue that the maintenance of the facility under the U.S. control is.