Legal Regulation Conservation Laws on UN Countries Territories For a long time, the roles of the UN in managing state affairs and world peace have evolved. There are more state and non-state actors in the process of developing and imposing UN laws in sovereign states. This research paper aims at evaluating legal regulation of the conservation laws of UN of the countries territories. The essay argues that the regulations are not sufficient in conserving country progress.

Russia is noticeable in the modern world through its interventions during the post-Soviet era with the special focus of the current leadership. China is trending towards becoming increasingly authoritarian through its military-geopolitical or oil/gas-motivated expansionist diplomatic offensives on neighboring or trading countries propelled by the current leader. The authoritarian behavior appears to be supported by a strong sovereignty sense (Ferris, 2011). The UN has taken it to be a case of economic weakness within the developing countries. Such countries focus on putting up and keeping their interests above strong global economic waves. The achievements of such kind increase the obligation towards relying on sovereignty and other senses of pride in national levels. The concept is considered equal to those of most powerful countries (Ramcharan, 2009). The democracy ideology is prevalent across most global elements today; small and weak countries are theoretically equitable to biggest and most powerful countries. Theoretical basis for the democracy idea is based on sovereignty as a notion of the State within worlds of juxtaposed States.

In addition, international law permits the State to continue promoting sovereignty through divergent ways. The UN allows States to object the formation of customary rules persistently within regional laws since they may be counteractive to the vital interests. The UN does not have mechanisms of effectively prohibiting nuclear threats by countries such as North Korea or Iran (Ferris, 2011). A world of generalized prohibition against the use of force within customary international law and United Nations Charter is not an ideal deterrent for such disputable behavior. There are unchanged concepts for territorial sovereignty. While the UN Charter considers "political independence" and "territorial integrity" as a connection to prohibition of force, the notions do not have a clear relationship with elements of territorial sovereignty (Browne, 2011). An integral component of the protection objective for the State includes definitions of Rights and Duties of States by the Montevideo Convention of 1933. States are defined as sovereign entities evidenced in actual participation in the international community.

Sovereign states have a generalized approach to refraining from interference in domestic affairs for different entities. Irrespective of the social institutions and political regime that states have, the content of territorial limits is a continuous process that requires intervention. However, political leaders from different developing countries are reluctant and conservative in changing progressive plans regarding economic development as a way of catching up with developed economies. Reluctance is backed by a sense for State sovereignty. The fact that criticism is based on their reluctance, the leaders come up with the rebuttal against alleged non-intervention principles for domestic affairs (Vercken, 2011). The principle is firmly established through international law across long periods where such rebuttal is normally successful unless intervention from external authorities in enforcing human rights or environmental or humanitarian issue is accepted as a failed peremptory norm principle. However, it does not show that sovereignty is an absolute concept. In an absolute state, it denies the idea of international legal order for basic needs of humanity's survival.

Reliance on sovereignty for fundamental attributes of state is not a detail exemption for international law through general treaty obligations or international law (Ramcharan, 2009). States' legal obligations in co-operating with networks of certain international instruments restrains their freedom for action. This is a consequential implication of sovereignty exercise and a fact for exercising sovereignty through enhancing preservation of legal status of political and economic sovereignty. The obligations do not deprive the sovereign status of the states and do not diminish it (Ferris, 2011). It is observed that sovereignty in contemporary international law is a denotation of basic legal status in the international scale. States are not subject to governmental, legislative, judicial, or executive jurisdiction of foreign States or foreign law above public international law within territorial jurisdiction (UN Millennium Project. 2013).

'Responsibility to protect' is an emerging concept in the last two-decade in the UN agenda. Between 2001 and 2005, the concept developed from an independent idea. It was advanced by commissions of experts into a unanimously endorsed proposal by United Nations General Assembly...

Responsibility to protect has been identified as a critical resolution from the General Assembly and the Security Council taking prominent places within the international debate for protection of country sovereignty and that of populations against mass atrocities. The approach has been implemented by states, the international media, and non-governmental organizations to condemn and justify behavior. The application has been a critical determinant of advocating and deterring international action addressed to responses to crises across places such as Gaza, Darfur, Kenya, Sri Lanka, the Congo, Georgia, and Myanmar. Other areas Syria, North Korea, Libya, Cote d'Ivoire, Yemen and other states amidst the 'Arab Spring' (UN Millennium Project. 2013). However, the international legal implications have not been immediately clear, and impacts are not vivid.
Responsibility to protect by the UN encompasses broad propositions. A contested and novel challenge includes application of accepted principles within international law in countries such as Tanzania and Saudi Arabia. However, commentators fail to make a clear distinction the implications of the policy against the obscure pronouncements of the extent of conceived concepts in entirety (Vercken, 2011). Countries understand this point as an emerging trend within international law. Instead of make such pronouncements, the UN finds it more fruitful establish the scope of legal support on each of the distinct propositions in the concept.

The initial proposition is that sovereign states require responsibilities of protecting their elements from mass atrocities such as war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The duty has deep embedment in the existing international laws. There is an ideal establishment of various regional and universal human rights conventions while promoting clear endorsement of the World Summit Agreement by General Assembly in 2005 (Ramcharan, 2009). All states have accepted and implemented structures to perform the duty. Even states that are most wary for 'responsibility to protect', like Myanmar, Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan and Nicaragua, there is an independent drive towards implementation of solutions. The notion that societies within such states may have a right to hold state governments to account for performance of such duties is well established (Ferris, 2011).

From the end of Cold War, the UN Security Council continues to condemn states that contravene the code of conduct. The UN has proceeded to authorize interventions and sanctions to respond to occurrences of humanitarian crises and mass atrocities through regulations of Chapter VII in UN Charter. Two permanent members, Russia and China, tend to oppose efforts in the Security Council to initiate military intervention for affairs regarding the functioning of sovereign states without granting consent (Vercken, 2011). Further, there are questions about the viability of unauthorized interventions as they are highly contested. In contrast, both states had a high willingness of allow the UNSC Resolution adoption of 1973 that the authorized application of 'all necessary measures' in protecting civilians from threat mass atrocities within Libya under the leadership of Moammar Gaddafi (UN Millennium Project. 2013). It is clear that the UN Council includes legal rights of authorizing both forcible and non-forcible interventions in enforcing protection of populations for instances where the system permits them to do so. The notion where states could implement obligations of protecting their populations from extensive mass atrocities requires firm establishment of international law and the need of not detaining populations against their will (Freedman, 2013).

The ICJ makes it clear that the scope of jurisdiction of some cases is confined to genocide crimes. It declares that power to rule against breaches on other obligations was not endowed under international law. The UN focused on crimes amounting to genocide and those that protect human rights within armed conflicts. The application of the disclaimer of alleged breaches is based on obligations of peremptory norms and those that protect humanitarian values owed erga ones. The ICJ suggests that arguments are made with obligations of protecting populations from other crimes falling under 'responsibility to protect' such as war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity constitute peremptory norms. However, the ruling of the Court was restricted to the consideration of genocide crimes.

The Court emphasizes that the punishment and prevention has a close linked to the Genocide Convention Article (Freedman, 2013). The obligation of prevention differs from the obligation to induce punishment. The obligation of each of the contracting States in preventing genocide is compelling and normative. The implications are not merged based on duty to punish and cannot be regarded as components of similar duties. The Court determines that the obligation scope in prevention extends past referral of competent United Nations organs based on Article VIII. Even as the…