Ciao!

International Law 102

04.06.2003

I've been debating a theoretical issue of the practical implications international politics w/ a German named Marco. Here's an excerpt of the running debate:

Only joint action in the UN can break the vicious circle of violence. Therefore, everybody should help to make international law stricter and easier to enforce. A UN-super-state doesn't exist. Probably it shouldn't even exist. It would be hard to administer such a monster. But moves need to be made into that direction if we want to break the rule-of-the-fist. It is dangerous to be happy with the rule-of-the-fist only because one is the strongest. Envy, hatred, famine... a lot of things make this planet insecure, even for the strongest.

The safest way is cooperation on a supernational level. That is why we have international law. We should enforce it. I said, we should enforce it. America, doesn't. It only enforces a small portion of it against the will of many/most members of the UN because it wants Iraqi oil. America seems not to agree in the need to break the vicious circle. America does not believe in supernational cooperation it only believes in national interest. I think I have pointed out, why that is a short sighted attitude.

First, I'm not sure that joint action in the UN is the only possible solution. I'll concede that it might very well be a solution. But political problems, unlike arithmetic ones, rarely have only one solution. Until all other possible solutions are proven failures, I won't universally claim that there is any one, singular practical solution.

Second, I agree w/ Marco that everyone should help enforce international law. But what if they don't? How do you deal w/ the few countries that refuse to enforce international law? Everybody should have good taste in music. No one should buy David Hasselhoff albums. But some do.

Third, I'm not so sure we have international law because we agreed that international cooperation is desired. Much of the international law we recognize (especially all the ones w/ clever Latin names) were enforced - by force - by the Romans (ah, Pax Romana!). International law wasn't born in 1947 w/ the creation of the United Nations. It evolved over centuries, cobbled together by the states that were able to enforce it. The freedom of the high seas? Thank Queen Elizabeth (ah, Pax Britania!).

Fourth, the accusation that "America" doesn't enforce international law - and is not part of this magical "we" - seems a rather sweeping generalization. Surely the thousands of Americans who protested agree w/ you, Marco. Not all Americans are devils, whatever Osama might say.

Fifth, the accusation that the US is only interested in Iraq for its oil makes a singular obvious mistake: it assumes that those states opposing a war w/ Iraq make their decisions w/o concern for oil (or any other material interests). Are we to assume that the US is the only state that pursues self interests? Chirac doesn't care about French oil contracts?

Imagine international relations between two countries as a friendly soccer (football) match between two teams. No referee. It's on the "honor" system. After all, everyone knows the rules. Now imagine one team starts cheating. They play rough, they tackle the player (not the ball), they demand free kicks. How do you enforce the rules? The game is under way. There's no referee. The other team claims they're not cheating; you're just a bunch of cry-babies. How do you enforce the rules?

Posted by Miguel at 12:19 AM

Comments

Posted by: vanessa at April 6, 2003 10:41 AM

Posted by: miguel at April 6, 2003 02:27 PM