Salam Al Rabadi: Author And Researcher
In International Relations
It is logical to emphasize the relativity of science,
as the position on the teleology(and finality) of science and knowledge is
characterized by suspicion and relativism, especially in light of this new
global pattern on the level of political and economic corruption. This reality
opens the door to controversy over the problematics related to the objectivity of many
academic approaches, the reliability of numbers and the scientific
controversies associated with the "Covid 19" pandemic.
Consequently, despite the complexities facing the
development of science, the theory of skepticism will remain subject to
rotation, and based on that, on the level of international relations there is a
very important question about scientific determinism:
Should science be allowed to develop as much as it can
regardless of the potential consequences it will have on societies and the fate
of humanity?
It is clear
that there is no longer absolute confidence in modern science in in light of
the main principle upon which of postmodernism, which is the principle of doubt
in scientific knowledge. The paradox here is that questioning or scrutinizing
science and its results is no longer a philosophical issue, but rather a
practical one. Where it seems clearly and unequivocally that the reality of
knowledge, power and academic freedom in light of the "Covid 19" pandemic,
is an accurate reflection of the theoretical and practical tensions associated
with the problematics of the relationship between science and politics in
international relations.
This reality
raises many controversies regarding the possibility and effectiveness of
establishing ethical controls at the level of science, as it seems that the
development of scientific production and its implications and its intertwining
complexities come much faster than the development of ethical controls.
Proceeding from
this, and in the midst of provocative uncertainty, and with the presence of
many radical tendencies associated to duality of the relationship between
science and politics, there is a need to find something fixed somewhere. As the stage in which states were trying to
address scientific problems by establishing traditional technical committees
that bring together scholars and specialists, proved to be unsuccessful and
ineffective.
Therefore the time has come for the dawn of an era concerned with establishing clear and unambiguous laws and treaties regarding the problems of scientific development, especially at the level of international criminal law. Where, by tracking the development of international criminal law on a theoretical and practical level, it becomes clear that it does not keep pace with the new global patterns and their implications for global human security.
This
certainly requires amending the Rome Statute and expanding the powers of the
International Criminal Court to include crimes related to the biotechnical
revolution, climate engineering, artificial intelligence, virus modification
and biological warfare .. etc.
In the end, it must be emphasized that science is only a form of thought developed by man and is not necessarily the best form, and that it is only superior in the eyes of believers in the myth of the determinism of scientific ideology.
For
example, the belief was that confidence in mathematical models would remove
human bias, but in practice those algorithms (models) began to exercise their
own biases regarding how they work, to the point where the concept of Algorithmic
Justice began to circulate and to demand the Destruction of the Weapons
of Mathematics. And this confirms that the scientific age associated with
technology is not guaranteed to produce positive results when humanity is going
through tough times.
This
scientific determinism raises many questions about whether science is currently
playing the role of religion in modern society? Therefore, Is there a need for
a separation process between science and the state (i.e. politics), as was the
process of separating religion and state or politics?
The logical
answer to these questions may lie in asking the principled question about
whether there is a possibility to draw the maximum limits of scientific
progress before thinking about separating it from politics?
To sum up, if the 21st century has reconsidered the certainties
in everything related to man and politics, and if it is secularism tried to be
an alternative to the ethics of religions, but will the development of science
(which cannot be curbed) be the decisive and unexpected factor, which will
place international relations in the 21st century in front of new patterns, to
which it will not be easy to find any theoretical and practical approach to it?
