International Law
yosi
NYC Posts: 3,069
Got this off Wiki:
The conflict between international law and national sovereignty is subject to vigorous debate and dispute in academia, diplomacy, and politics. Certainly, there is a growing trend toward judging a state's domestic actions in the light of international law and standards. Numerous people now view the nation-state as the primary unit of international affairs, and believe that only states may choose to voluntarily enter into commitments under international law, and that they have the right to follow their own counsel when it comes to interpretation of their commitments. Certain scholars and political leaders feel that these modern developments endanger nation states by taking power away from state governments and ceding it to international bodies such as the U.N. and the World Bank, argue that international law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states, and discern a legislative and judicial process to international law that parallels such processes within domestic law. This especially occurs when states violate or deviate from the expected standards of conduct adhered to by all civilized nations.
A number of states support very narrow interpretations of international law, including the People's Republic of China, the military junta currently holding power in Burma, and the Russian Federation.[citation needed] These states maintain that sovereignty—and thus what some view as the basis of sovereignty, the ultima ratio regum, or last argument of kings (force and coercion, by military or other means)—is the only true international law; thus seeing states as having free rein over their own affairs and their affairs in the larger world. Other states oppose this view. One group of opponents of this point of view, including many European nations, maintain that all civilized nations have certain norms of conduct expected of them, including the prohibition of genocide, slavery and the slave trade, wars of aggression, torture, and piracy, and that violation of these universal norms represents a crime, not only against the individual victims, but against humanity as a whole. States and individuals who subscribe to this view opine that, in the case of the individual responsible for violation of international law, he "is become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind"[6], and thus subject to prosecution in a fair trial before any fundamentally just tribunal, through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Another group believes that states only commit to international law with express consent, whether through treaty or customary law, and have the right to make their own interpretations of its meaning; and that international courts only function with the consent of states.
Though the European democracies tend to support broad, universalistic interpretations of international law, many other democracies have differing views on international law. Several democracies, including India, Israel and the United States, take a flexible, eclectic approach, recognizing aspects of public international law such as territorial rights as universal, regarding other aspects as arising from treaty or custom, and viewing certain aspects as not being subjects of public international law at all. Democracies in the developing world, due to their past colonial histories, often insist on non-interference in their internal affairs, particularly regarding human rights standards or their peculiar institutions, but often strongly support international law at the bilateral and multilateral levels, such as in the United Nations, and especially regarding the use of force, disarmament obligations, and the terms of the UN Charter.
I think this makes for an interesting discussion. What does it really mean to say that there is such a thing as international law? From the bit of the article above it is clear that "international law" is not a set and established institution. Clearly it isn't like domestic law, which functions with the backing of the government's monopoly on force. No one is going to war to enforce international law, except sometimes in the most extreme cases (genocide), or for there own reasons, but attempting to use "international law" to gather support (Iraq). Many people on the train talk about international law, and when they do they seem to be using the "European" understanding of what IL is. But it seems to me that in a sense international law doesn't really exist, because it is a binding legal system only for those who choose to be bound by it.
The conflict between international law and national sovereignty is subject to vigorous debate and dispute in academia, diplomacy, and politics. Certainly, there is a growing trend toward judging a state's domestic actions in the light of international law and standards. Numerous people now view the nation-state as the primary unit of international affairs, and believe that only states may choose to voluntarily enter into commitments under international law, and that they have the right to follow their own counsel when it comes to interpretation of their commitments. Certain scholars and political leaders feel that these modern developments endanger nation states by taking power away from state governments and ceding it to international bodies such as the U.N. and the World Bank, argue that international law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states, and discern a legislative and judicial process to international law that parallels such processes within domestic law. This especially occurs when states violate or deviate from the expected standards of conduct adhered to by all civilized nations.
A number of states support very narrow interpretations of international law, including the People's Republic of China, the military junta currently holding power in Burma, and the Russian Federation.[citation needed] These states maintain that sovereignty—and thus what some view as the basis of sovereignty, the ultima ratio regum, or last argument of kings (force and coercion, by military or other means)—is the only true international law; thus seeing states as having free rein over their own affairs and their affairs in the larger world. Other states oppose this view. One group of opponents of this point of view, including many European nations, maintain that all civilized nations have certain norms of conduct expected of them, including the prohibition of genocide, slavery and the slave trade, wars of aggression, torture, and piracy, and that violation of these universal norms represents a crime, not only against the individual victims, but against humanity as a whole. States and individuals who subscribe to this view opine that, in the case of the individual responsible for violation of international law, he "is become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind"[6], and thus subject to prosecution in a fair trial before any fundamentally just tribunal, through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Another group believes that states only commit to international law with express consent, whether through treaty or customary law, and have the right to make their own interpretations of its meaning; and that international courts only function with the consent of states.
Though the European democracies tend to support broad, universalistic interpretations of international law, many other democracies have differing views on international law. Several democracies, including India, Israel and the United States, take a flexible, eclectic approach, recognizing aspects of public international law such as territorial rights as universal, regarding other aspects as arising from treaty or custom, and viewing certain aspects as not being subjects of public international law at all. Democracies in the developing world, due to their past colonial histories, often insist on non-interference in their internal affairs, particularly regarding human rights standards or their peculiar institutions, but often strongly support international law at the bilateral and multilateral levels, such as in the United Nations, and especially regarding the use of force, disarmament obligations, and the terms of the UN Charter.
I think this makes for an interesting discussion. What does it really mean to say that there is such a thing as international law? From the bit of the article above it is clear that "international law" is not a set and established institution. Clearly it isn't like domestic law, which functions with the backing of the government's monopoly on force. No one is going to war to enforce international law, except sometimes in the most extreme cases (genocide), or for there own reasons, but attempting to use "international law" to gather support (Iraq). Many people on the train talk about international law, and when they do they seem to be using the "European" understanding of what IL is. But it seems to me that in a sense international law doesn't really exist, because it is a binding legal system only for those who choose to be bound by it.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments