Warrap-Upper Nile civilian’s conflict: law under disintegration in South Sudan

The pillar irony in South Sudan is that an economic crisis is creating hardship for a huge number of ‘ordinary citizens, meanwhile some government officials reluctantly hang lose or even contribute to indirectly support this very tragedy. But the question is how will this change the lives of ordinary citizens?

Fundamental needs of South Sudanese are not being met in South Sudan and the manner in which legal rights are constructed as well as the way justice is administered obviously perpetuates social and economic inequality. Hence, for ordinary citizens living past life of their ancestors is the only way they see could maintain their lives, this must not be allowed to occur or continue to be the case for survival in a legally structured state like South Sudan.

To eliminate this savage life, government needs to ensure that the law which governs civilians and protect their properties is appropriately balanced and displayed to all citizens that it is “you & the law”.

A few weeks ago a certain group of people in Warrap State assaulted civilians of Upper Nile and looted their cattle. This is currenty being investigated. According to the Warrap civilians who are caught in action, they claim that Upper Nile civilians had lunched an attack on them few months ago and took their cattle, but the cattle were not returned. The government of South Sudan delegated special envoy from within the government to carry out the investigation and try to recover the cattle that were taken from Upper Nile civilians and return to their owners. Through collection, soldiers appointed on government side felt in to problems with civilians because soldiers seem to be taking every cow they see without either distinguishing the cattle or explain the reason to civilians.

Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to be absurd), Warrap civilians argue that their cattle were taken first and not returned therefore they took revenge to replace the cattle. Where is the Law of South Sudan?

To take one side for granted for example, order Warrap civilians to return the cattle and oversee what was done to them before would be injustice and cannot reflect accurate judgment under the law. Explicitly, to give equal justice to both civilians, the term justice has to be understood according to its legal definition. How to do this, those government officials appointed for Warrap-Upper Nile tribal conflict have to understand that “justice is a constant will of giving every man his own”. But to miss this definition and act on one side favor would definitely create “Basic problem with Fairness-obligatory participation”. This being said that whatever you want, can others create an obligation for you to do [something] by the problem.

Philosophically, to better solve these Warrap-Upper Nile civilians’ conflict, two notions of an entitlement theory of justice should be understood. First, Justice in acquisitions of holdings: “a person who acquires holding in accordance with the principle of justice is entitled to that holding”. Second, Justice in transfer of holdings: “a person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer of holding is entitled to that holding”. Moreover, whoever acts out of this just line by not following two principles of justice is against the laws of states.

Nevertheless, whether the distribution of goods is just or not, depends on whether some initials of distribution is just? Government of South Sudan needs to ensure that all of the officials selected for this Warrap-Upper Nile civilian’s tribal problem are open minded and loyal people who would not take sides to favor any of the two groups. The cause of conflict between Warrap-Upper Nile civilians has two sides of explanation.

First, it has idiographic explanation. This specifically apply to what motivated civilians to carry out an assault, for example, Warrap civilians claim they took Upper Nile civilians cattle because their cattle were taken by Upper Nile civilians before that and not returned. If this problem is not solved, Upper Nile civilians may attack Warrap civilians and perhaps use the same excuse to explain their reason.

Conceptually, if Warrap-Upper Nile civilians continue to do this the entire peace between civilians and tight relationships along with pasture will quickly collapse; and therein lies the tragedy. Exaggeration will rise enormously and hatred may flow in to create division between people. Innocent civilians whose children are being killed will be telling government officials “come home and sit in a flat of tears” because there is nothing left to them, but a devastated memories and questions about why is their government is failing them. Where is the bill of rights and moral duties in South Sudan? Government of South Sudan needs to declare emergency rescuers to solve this problem justly, but to assume that this is a state problem will be a “category mistake”.

The second explanation is nomothetic explanation: nomothetically, the Warrap-Upper Nile civilians’ conflict is the result of a lack of law surveillance in place. Lack of law surveillance may be generated as a cause of unstable economic situations. If law agencies are employed to watch the law, they have to create better understanding and interactions policies between the government and the civilians.

Last but not less, the so call Warrap-Upper Nile civilians clashes need two theories to be followed in order to get to better results or allow better relationship between civilians living in those two states.

Officials selected should use inductive theory: for example to study this Warrap-Upper Nile civilians clashes, officials should begin by interviewing Warrap-Upper Nile civilians about the main cause of assault. From the interviews officials may observe patterns indicating when Warrap-Upper Nile civilians conflict compounded by tribal problems or anti-social probabilities of unlawful act increases. Therefore, a theory may be developed to link explanation to unlawful acts to rates of two states laws.

The theory should also be used is deductive theory: deductively, to study Warrap-Upper Nile civilians’ conflict, government officials should apply theory of status differentials as of social needs and values to explain civilian’s clashes. Realistically, one can argue that literacy skills are valuable to any society.

To form hypothetical explanation, those individuals who cause tribal conflicts are illiterate and this must not be supported by the literate people. Some top government officials in South Sudan are now leaning toward their tribal support and even post threats to withdraw from the government because of uneducated civilians’ clashes.

South Sudan government along with its two states Warrap and Upper Nile governments should establish stable situation room for building peace, prosperity, unity, harmony, and loving kind in between as well as extend this process to other states to create valuable judgment for all people. Laws and justice are formed by conventional and their force is contractual, thus it is very important to obey laws. The opportunity cost of justice is that we choose to live justly and sacrifice our opportunity for the best so that we can prevent the Worst.
South Sudan Soul is above manifold