Lawless world
July 1, 2005 11:29 PM Subscribe
Is there such a thing as international law? I know this sounds absurd...
I got into an argument with my friend the other night over the legitimacy of World Tribunal on Iraq (It was an FPP. I am too lazy to continue searching after failing the first time). While he believes that what the US doing is wrong, he doesn't think that WTI can try the US because we have broken no law. He said that there is no law because agreements and such are unenforceable. I thought it was for the lack of manpower and resources. However, lacking these doesn't detract from these laws. Can someone who knows more clarify these points?
I also could've sworn that I've read some document on conventions of modern warfare or something, but can't for the life of me remember what it was called. So somebody confirm that I didn't dream that up?
Lastly, once a nation signs an international convention/agreement, that should in effect be a law right?
I got into an argument with my friend the other night over the legitimacy of World Tribunal on Iraq (It was an FPP. I am too lazy to continue searching after failing the first time). While he believes that what the US doing is wrong, he doesn't think that WTI can try the US because we have broken no law. He said that there is no law because agreements and such are unenforceable. I thought it was for the lack of manpower and resources. However, lacking these doesn't detract from these laws. Can someone who knows more clarify these points?
I also could've sworn that I've read some document on conventions of modern warfare or something, but can't for the life of me remember what it was called. So somebody confirm that I didn't dream that up?
Lastly, once a nation signs an international convention/agreement, that should in effect be a law right?
Response by poster: I thought the Geneva Conventions only dealt with treatment of prisoners...I'll go read it again.
posted by state fxn at 12:04 AM on July 2, 2005
posted by state fxn at 12:04 AM on July 2, 2005
Is there international law as such, with the same force and effect as domestic statutes and American (or sibling state) common law? Not really. Treaties can modify domestic law, but treaties, when effective, create domestic law, so if there's a treaty (or executive agreement, which is like a treaty but doesn't require Senate approval but can be preempted by a later federal statute) that doesn't conflict with the Constitution, US law incorporates that treaty. What you're dealing with there is an inherent sovereign power to create international agreements, and that inherent sovereign power is a real, if vague, principle of international law.
There are also other principles of international law that *can* be applied (comity between the legal systems of two sovereign countries may cause a court not to pursue a civil action in one state, for example), but those principles are almost always subject to domestic regulation. The critical issue is whether domestic noncompliance with international norms and principles rises to the level of making a state into a rogue state, but that is a *political* issue that invites a political response (entering into agreements with nations similarly affected by the rogue state, say).
Typically, a good rule of thumb is that sovereign nations are as independent between themselves as you are when you interact with your next-door neighbor: you *can* weaken your individuality (as when you impose legal duties on yourself through a contract), but you start with a certain sovereign dignity.
Or, more concisely, it's anarchy out there when you really look at it.
Do not, under any circumstances, rely on this answer in a legal context. IANAL. :)
posted by socratic at 12:18 AM on July 2, 2005
There are also other principles of international law that *can* be applied (comity between the legal systems of two sovereign countries may cause a court not to pursue a civil action in one state, for example), but those principles are almost always subject to domestic regulation. The critical issue is whether domestic noncompliance with international norms and principles rises to the level of making a state into a rogue state, but that is a *political* issue that invites a political response (entering into agreements with nations similarly affected by the rogue state, say).
Typically, a good rule of thumb is that sovereign nations are as independent between themselves as you are when you interact with your next-door neighbor: you *can* weaken your individuality (as when you impose legal duties on yourself through a contract), but you start with a certain sovereign dignity.
Or, more concisely, it's anarchy out there when you really look at it.
Do not, under any circumstances, rely on this answer in a legal context. IANAL. :)
posted by socratic at 12:18 AM on July 2, 2005
The stuff called international law isn't the same as regular law.
If I come round your house and perform violence upon you, there are cops who can arrest me and force me to be tried. This isn't true internationally -- if Jrun does bad to Metafilter, there are no World Police that Metafilter can rely upon to "arrest" Jrun or its leaders. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. There certainly aren't any World Police that can meaningfully limit what a great power does, except the other great powers.
If I make a contract with you and break it, you can sue me, and drag me through court, and when you get right down to it at the end of the day, cops will show up and force me to pay you what the judge said I had to pay you. This isn't true internationally. If Jrun makes a treaty with Metafilter and then says "Fuck you, I'm going to ignore the treaty," there's very little Metafilter can do about it. It can appeal to some courts, but the courts can't actually enforce anything. It can do something rude back to Jrun and hope that fixes their little red wagon. Or it can make war against Jrun itself.
There are lots of agreements out there about modern warfare, some of which involve treatment of prisoners, some of which involve treatment of noncombatants, some of which limit weaponry. None of them are binding in the same sense that a contract you make is binding on you. Any signatory nation is free, at any time, to just stop abiding by it. But they're all binding in the sense that most of the time, most nations agree that abiding by them (or at least abiding by them enough) is in their own self-interest, and there's a general agreement that if a nation ignores these conventions (whether they signed them or not) and loses a big war and gets occupied, it or its leaders will end up being punished somehow.
The stuff called international law, in this case, is basically a list of practices such that if you do them, and lose a war or otherwise get captured by others, they will do Bad Shit to you. If they lack the power to capture and hold you, they can't do anything to you. So, if they had a really big army, the WTI could grab and try Bush. It might be illegitimate or wrong in the sense that it might make baby Jesus cry because the good Lord didn't recognize the court's jurisdiction over Bush, but he'd still end up just as much in prison or the grave as Goering and company were.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:46 AM on July 2, 2005
If I come round your house and perform violence upon you, there are cops who can arrest me and force me to be tried. This isn't true internationally -- if Jrun does bad to Metafilter, there are no World Police that Metafilter can rely upon to "arrest" Jrun or its leaders. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. There certainly aren't any World Police that can meaningfully limit what a great power does, except the other great powers.
If I make a contract with you and break it, you can sue me, and drag me through court, and when you get right down to it at the end of the day, cops will show up and force me to pay you what the judge said I had to pay you. This isn't true internationally. If Jrun makes a treaty with Metafilter and then says "Fuck you, I'm going to ignore the treaty," there's very little Metafilter can do about it. It can appeal to some courts, but the courts can't actually enforce anything. It can do something rude back to Jrun and hope that fixes their little red wagon. Or it can make war against Jrun itself.
There are lots of agreements out there about modern warfare, some of which involve treatment of prisoners, some of which involve treatment of noncombatants, some of which limit weaponry. None of them are binding in the same sense that a contract you make is binding on you. Any signatory nation is free, at any time, to just stop abiding by it. But they're all binding in the sense that most of the time, most nations agree that abiding by them (or at least abiding by them enough) is in their own self-interest, and there's a general agreement that if a nation ignores these conventions (whether they signed them or not) and loses a big war and gets occupied, it or its leaders will end up being punished somehow.
The stuff called international law, in this case, is basically a list of practices such that if you do them, and lose a war or otherwise get captured by others, they will do Bad Shit to you. If they lack the power to capture and hold you, they can't do anything to you. So, if they had a really big army, the WTI could grab and try Bush. It might be illegitimate or wrong in the sense that it might make baby Jesus cry because the good Lord didn't recognize the court's jurisdiction over Bush, but he'd still end up just as much in prison or the grave as Goering and company were.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:46 AM on July 2, 2005
You can find lots of interesting treaty and resolutions that affect "international law" at a lot of official sites.
Official Documents of the United Nations search engine
Has a easier to use interface of more official documents like resolutions
Lots of European Union documents
A non-official collection of documents and treaties related to international law
posted by lockle at 1:29 AM on July 2, 2005
Official Documents of the United Nations search engine
Has a easier to use interface of more official documents like resolutions
Lots of European Union documents
A non-official collection of documents and treaties related to international law
posted by lockle at 1:29 AM on July 2, 2005
It's way too late for me to be trying to discuss politics but...
As I understand it, international law is made up of the treaties and agreements the various countries have made with one another. And of course, some of the most important and most comprehensive of these are the ones that (theoertically) give the UN the authority to decide when and if military action is needed. Essentially, the countries are supposed to try to work out their differences through the UN instead of on the battlefield. And if the UN doesn't authorize the use of force, then no force is supposed to be used.
But no matter how you slice it... the unprovoked invasion of one country by another is probably the clearest violation of international law you're ever going to find.
posted by Clay201 at 3:19 AM on July 2, 2005
As I understand it, international law is made up of the treaties and agreements the various countries have made with one another. And of course, some of the most important and most comprehensive of these are the ones that (theoertically) give the UN the authority to decide when and if military action is needed. Essentially, the countries are supposed to try to work out their differences through the UN instead of on the battlefield. And if the UN doesn't authorize the use of force, then no force is supposed to be used.
But no matter how you slice it... the unprovoked invasion of one country by another is probably the clearest violation of international law you're ever going to find.
posted by Clay201 at 3:19 AM on July 2, 2005
Much like domestic law, international law is really only as relevant as the firepower available to the enforcers.
posted by atrazine at 5:07 AM on July 2, 2005
posted by atrazine at 5:07 AM on July 2, 2005
The so-called World Tribunal on Iraq is not a good place to start any discussion on international law, because it is only a pretend enforcement body. Only governments, official intergovernmental bodies (like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization), and a select few specially sanctioned non-governmental bodies (most notably, the Olympic Movement and the International Committee of the Red Cross) have even the pretense of standing at international law. Put another way, there's no provision at international law for a citizen's arrest.
That said, there certainly is such a thing as "International Law," but it's best viewed as a polyvalent thing, with strong and weak layers.
At the strong layer are treaties between countries pertaining to specific agreements of conduct. Every nation abides by them, or tries, even if they might have the military power not to do so. Consider NAFTA and the WTO. Or even consider the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war. The U.S. could have sent Baathist stalwtarts of the Iraqi Army to Guantanamo as easily as it sent Yemeni volunteers who were captured with the Taliban, but it didn't. Why not? Because Iraq is a state party to the Geneva Convention and its uniformed soldiers were clearly entitled to be released at the conclusion of hostilities.
At the weak layer are the far more subjective things like covenants of human rights for one's own citizens, or principals of aggressive war which supposedly limit when war is justified. States always assert that their treatment of their citizens is lawful. States never go to war without some claim of justification under international law, or some assertion that the matter is not subject to international law because it is of a domestic character.
No one is ever punished for violating those rules unless their government is overthrown or they lose the war they started so badly that their own territory is conquered ... which is not enforcement, per se, but victor's justice.
posted by MattD at 7:39 AM on July 2, 2005
That said, there certainly is such a thing as "International Law," but it's best viewed as a polyvalent thing, with strong and weak layers.
At the strong layer are treaties between countries pertaining to specific agreements of conduct. Every nation abides by them, or tries, even if they might have the military power not to do so. Consider NAFTA and the WTO. Or even consider the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war. The U.S. could have sent Baathist stalwtarts of the Iraqi Army to Guantanamo as easily as it sent Yemeni volunteers who were captured with the Taliban, but it didn't. Why not? Because Iraq is a state party to the Geneva Convention and its uniformed soldiers were clearly entitled to be released at the conclusion of hostilities.
At the weak layer are the far more subjective things like covenants of human rights for one's own citizens, or principals of aggressive war which supposedly limit when war is justified. States always assert that their treatment of their citizens is lawful. States never go to war without some claim of justification under international law, or some assertion that the matter is not subject to international law because it is of a domestic character.
No one is ever punished for violating those rules unless their government is overthrown or they lose the war they started so badly that their own territory is conquered ... which is not enforcement, per se, but victor's justice.
posted by MattD at 7:39 AM on July 2, 2005
what atrazine said: read some hobbes. Law is dependent on the source of authority, and the international community does not have a sovereign. Nation-states now have constitutions and traditions which seem to be sources of authority, so we can imagine international law working according to agreements and treaties, but in the end, if we really disagree with what the treaties are calling for, it will come down to who has more power.
But these are actually really interesting questions in political philosophy. Even if you think law is ultimately not hobbesian (or perhaps can be changed into something less hobbesian) there's no doubt that international law works differently from national law at this stage. However, the nation-state may not be a permanent fixture, so it'll be interesting to see how international law develops.
posted by mdn at 7:56 AM on July 2, 2005
But these are actually really interesting questions in political philosophy. Even if you think law is ultimately not hobbesian (or perhaps can be changed into something less hobbesian) there's no doubt that international law works differently from national law at this stage. However, the nation-state may not be a permanent fixture, so it'll be interesting to see how international law develops.
posted by mdn at 7:56 AM on July 2, 2005
what atrazine said: read hobbes. Law is dependent on the source of authority, and the international community does not have a sovereign. Nation-states now have constitutions and traditions which seem to be sources of authority, so we can imagine international law working according to agreements and treaties, but in the end, if we really disagree with what the treaties are calling for, it will come down to who has more power.
But these are actually really interesting questions in political philosophy. Even if you think law is ultimately not hobbesian (or perhaps can be changed into something less hobbesian) there's no doubt that international law works differently from national law at this stage. However, the nation-state may not be a permanent fixture, so it'll be interesting to see how international law develops.
posted by mdn at 8:06 AM on July 2, 2005
But these are actually really interesting questions in political philosophy. Even if you think law is ultimately not hobbesian (or perhaps can be changed into something less hobbesian) there's no doubt that international law works differently from national law at this stage. However, the nation-state may not be a permanent fixture, so it'll be interesting to see how international law develops.
posted by mdn at 8:06 AM on July 2, 2005
To summarize and largely restate what has been said above:
International law exists, but it isn't the same thing as national or subnational law. There is no enforcement body, only other nations. If one nation "breaks" an international law, other nations have few recourses: at one extreme, invasion and conquest; at the other, sanctions and "strongly worded" diplomatic letters. In the middle are trade wars, expulsion of foreign nationals, and recalling of ambassadors.
The only international law that matters is the law that binds one nation to certain behaviors by treaty.
Notably, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and some addenda from 1977, and the original Laws of War agreed to in the 19th century, are all valid, binding international law of this type. That is why it is important whether a nation is a signatory to a treaty such as the Geneva Conventions. (There are actually four: on the treatment of battlefield casualties, on the laws of war at sea, on treatment of prisoners of war, and treatment of civilians.)
For the United States, the Constitution provides that once the Senate ratifies a treaty, it is "the Supreme Law of the Land", interpreted normally as being as enforceable as the constitution itself. In other words, Congress cannot pass a law that violates a treaty. The US military schools officers in detail on the Laws of War, and violations -- such as intentionally shooting a civilian -- are also in principle violations of the Uniform Military Code of Justice. Similarly, it would be illegal for a US company to violate (say) a clean-water treaty.
Ultimately nations will only observe treaties that are in their interest, and the UN to some extent recognizes this in its charter -- which was written around notions of sovereighty based at the national level. The UN is by no means a "world government", despite the worst fears of the John Birchers (and the wildest hopes of idealist lefties), because it was explicitly crippled from the very beginning.
The closest example to your question would be the case of Nicaragua vs. the United States, which was brought before the World Court in the Hague (it predates the UN). When the court ruled against the US, the Reagan administration withdrew from the part of the ICJ treaty that established jurisdiction in such matters. But as for the World Tribunal, it's a PR stunt. From the point of view of any sovereign nation, not just the US, it's a complete legal nullity. The only hope they have is that they can generate some press and sympathy for their point of view.
posted by dhartung at 11:33 PM on July 2, 2005
International law exists, but it isn't the same thing as national or subnational law. There is no enforcement body, only other nations. If one nation "breaks" an international law, other nations have few recourses: at one extreme, invasion and conquest; at the other, sanctions and "strongly worded" diplomatic letters. In the middle are trade wars, expulsion of foreign nationals, and recalling of ambassadors.
The only international law that matters is the law that binds one nation to certain behaviors by treaty.
Notably, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and some addenda from 1977, and the original Laws of War agreed to in the 19th century, are all valid, binding international law of this type. That is why it is important whether a nation is a signatory to a treaty such as the Geneva Conventions. (There are actually four: on the treatment of battlefield casualties, on the laws of war at sea, on treatment of prisoners of war, and treatment of civilians.)
For the United States, the Constitution provides that once the Senate ratifies a treaty, it is "the Supreme Law of the Land", interpreted normally as being as enforceable as the constitution itself. In other words, Congress cannot pass a law that violates a treaty. The US military schools officers in detail on the Laws of War, and violations -- such as intentionally shooting a civilian -- are also in principle violations of the Uniform Military Code of Justice. Similarly, it would be illegal for a US company to violate (say) a clean-water treaty.
Ultimately nations will only observe treaties that are in their interest, and the UN to some extent recognizes this in its charter -- which was written around notions of sovereighty based at the national level. The UN is by no means a "world government", despite the worst fears of the John Birchers (and the wildest hopes of idealist lefties), because it was explicitly crippled from the very beginning.
The closest example to your question would be the case of Nicaragua vs. the United States, which was brought before the World Court in the Hague (it predates the UN). When the court ruled against the US, the Reagan administration withdrew from the part of the ICJ treaty that established jurisdiction in such matters. But as for the World Tribunal, it's a PR stunt. From the point of view of any sovereign nation, not just the US, it's a complete legal nullity. The only hope they have is that they can generate some press and sympathy for their point of view.
posted by dhartung at 11:33 PM on July 2, 2005
Response by poster: Thank you everybody for your answers. They were all very helpful. =D
Reading the press statements released upon the conclusion of the WTI, I realized that there were no authority behind them, only citizens speaking out against a government. I sympathize and support their action though little if any material good will result from it. However, that's just my opinion.
As to the Geneva Conventions, obviously we signed it right? So what about our treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? If we indeed violated the convention, shouldn't an objective international party investigate this instead of leaving this up to the US government where there's an obvious conflict of interest? I have heard the argument though that technically these aren't prisoners as protected in the convention.
posted by state fxn at 3:25 AM on July 3, 2005
Reading the press statements released upon the conclusion of the WTI, I realized that there were no authority behind them, only citizens speaking out against a government. I sympathize and support their action though little if any material good will result from it. However, that's just my opinion.
As to the Geneva Conventions, obviously we signed it right? So what about our treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? If we indeed violated the convention, shouldn't an objective international party investigate this instead of leaving this up to the US government where there's an obvious conflict of interest? I have heard the argument though that technically these aren't prisoners as protected in the convention.
posted by state fxn at 3:25 AM on July 3, 2005
Hah! Yes, but who will do the investigations-- We're a party to the Geneva Convention, but not the ICC. You can *argue* that the prisoners did not fall under the geneva convention, and I've also heard the argument that they were not "tortured" within the meaning of torture for the Torture Convention (I forget the official name of this one). The problem with international law is that it is often "soft law"-- more aspirational than anything, and there often aren't any enforcement provisions (like your friend said, although that doesn't necessarily mean there's never jurisdiction, because there often is... it's complicated). I'm a law student, and I've only taken a few courses on international law, but it's one of my favorite areas of study precisely because of these complex questions.
posted by weiailei at 7:31 AM on July 3, 2005
posted by weiailei at 7:31 AM on July 3, 2005
You know, there are several ways to think about international law. One of which is as a network of interlocking treaties. This is what NATO and the Warsaw Pact is/was about - mutual defense pacts and the like. If North Korea were to nuke Norway (not that they would), suddenly they'd be at war with not just Norway, but all of NATO's signatories. This is not a 'law' like 'you must stop at a red light', but it's a fact and sovereign nations need to take it into account when contemplating actions.
The UN is an organization built on a bunch of treaties of the member nations, but in addition to this it has a general assembly which can pass non-binding resolutions. It also has an armed force which the Security Council can send around the world to actually shoot, bomb, and sink things - they wear blue helmets and use guns, even though there is a large sculpture of a revolver with a knot tied in the barrel outside of UN headquarters.
UN is also affiliated with that court in the Hague where Carla del Ponte is trying Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies for war crimes. This is an attempt to bring some sort of international justice that can be applied to the leader of sovereign nations. It'll be interesting to see whether Saddam ever gets dragged in front of this court; I doubt it. I tend to view this court as something of a Star Chamber, anyway; it's not as though they're going to set Slobodan free. He already lost.
Finally, many philosophers have written on what the principles of international law would be, in a morally perfect world. Kant's 'On Perpetual Peace' is my favorite of these and definitely worth a read, if you are someone who can wade through the high-density firehose of thought that is Kant.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:26 PM on July 3, 2005
The UN is an organization built on a bunch of treaties of the member nations, but in addition to this it has a general assembly which can pass non-binding resolutions. It also has an armed force which the Security Council can send around the world to actually shoot, bomb, and sink things - they wear blue helmets and use guns, even though there is a large sculpture of a revolver with a knot tied in the barrel outside of UN headquarters.
UN is also affiliated with that court in the Hague where Carla del Ponte is trying Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies for war crimes. This is an attempt to bring some sort of international justice that can be applied to the leader of sovereign nations. It'll be interesting to see whether Saddam ever gets dragged in front of this court; I doubt it. I tend to view this court as something of a Star Chamber, anyway; it's not as though they're going to set Slobodan free. He already lost.
Finally, many philosophers have written on what the principles of international law would be, in a morally perfect world. Kant's 'On Perpetual Peace' is my favorite of these and definitely worth a read, if you are someone who can wade through the high-density firehose of thought that is Kant.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:26 PM on July 3, 2005
« Older Student loan collection fee elimination? | Classical music in Fassbinder's Maria Braun? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I think you're thinking of geneva conventions.
posted by delmoi at 11:53 PM on July 1, 2005