What can we do to stop people harming others?

On our last tutor lecture, we discussed about how politics turn to violence. And before ending the class, our professor asked us “How can we end violence?” I personally, had a difficult time answering this because I don’t think violence can ever be removed from our system. There were some of my classmates who have given good answers. But if our professor have picked me to answer this, my answer would be that I think the only way we can stop people from acts of violence is if people will learn how to value lives of other people instead of valuing material things. This is my answer because I think people or human beings are driven to gain power and wealth all the time. We have this desire because of means of survival. But if we give more importance to life and values, I think people would be less violent. But I don’t think it would be the complete answer or general answer for everyone.
I don’t know but as I’ve said, I really think that it is in our human nature to act aggressively against each other for different reasons. And sometimes an act of violence can also be an act to keep everyone and everything in order. In the beginning of the chapter in the book, Anne Orford emphasized force to be answer to helping other people in achieving peace and order for everyone. The force being described is the military interventions implemented by a particular organization or country. In my opinion, I think military force has been a convincing act to relieve others from suffering because it is an influential force. If you would think about it, the army or military force is a powerful factor in gaining power but it can also be used to prevent others from doing harm. For example, when Marcos implemented Martial Law during his time, the country was very peaceful. Yes, there are news about people being kidnapped or killed by his men but generally, the country was peaceful and everybody was following orders. I think because of the powerful force the military has, people are more disciplined. They give more importance to their fears, so that they don’t do anything reckless or harmful against other people. But others would say that this kind of movement would be not so essential anymore in this day of age. Due to globalization, there would be a more integrated and harmonized legal system that could be practiced for security and human rights (Orford, 2009).
As also discussed in the book, we would have to look at different perspectives in how to solve the issue of violence worldwide. Law and politics are both systems that have powerful influences over our way of living. And using these systems may help in stopping people from harming others. The first matter that is discussed is the Metaphysical account of Law; the relation between legality and legitimacy. The example given in the book was about the Kosovo intervention, the act was illegal because it did not comply with the authorized grounds but it was legitimate in a sense that it was an essential act fought for values. The reference to the universal law gives legitimacy to the act of intervention (Orford, 2009). The second account of law is the Realist; an intervention that is not concerned with universal norms. This dismisses any portrayal of the systematic nature of international order or any suggestion that international law may bring into being a political community (Orford, 2009). There is also the Decisionist account of law which claims that the primary role of the state is to protect citizens, and that the state depends for its survival upon the existence of a sovereign who can guarantee the values and law of the state (Orford, 2009). I think this account of law is somewhat related to the fact that violence is most of the time ordered by rulers. So I think this kind of account of law makes sense because leaders or rulers most of the time are the important factor in implementing rules and laws that could unite people or harm people. Lastly would be the Democratic account of law. This is about the determination of legitimacy that requires a justification from principles that are immanent to the law itself (Orford, 2009). Discussing these different accounts could help us understand better how we can come up with sufficient laws that could be essential in stopping people from harming others.
There would be an effective way and also proper way in solving the issues about harm against other people. The effective way would be the use of force because as I’ve described military force is a powerful mean of implementing laws. And the proper way would be implementing laws that would stop people from harming others by means of legal actions. But if you think about it, these two perspectives can’t be intertwined because it is somewhat difficult to come up with means that can be effective at the same time proper for everyone.

Reference:
McNeil, W., Global Politics, 2008