When and Why Does International Law Get Obeyed?

Remove all ads!

Because countries are sovereign, compliance with international law is voluntary. The question therefore, naturally arises as to why should countries obey international law? The answer tends to be simple and straightforwad. Countries obey internatinoal law out of self-interest. When it is followed, international law brings an element of predictability and certainty to world politics, which helps mute the struggle for power and the anarchic tendencies that are always present. Customs are followed because states see more benefits than costs in adhering to them. Treaties are agreements voluntarily entered into, and it stands to reason that countries will not sign a treaty that is not in their best interest or that they will be tempted to break. If they expect other states to honor commitments and to observe the practices and customs of international law in their dealings with them, the must do likewise.
Quite clearly, compliance does not always happen. When it does not, it is because the influence of international legal prohibitions against a pattern of behavior has been overridden by other concerns. Although violoations of international law are a sign of its weaknesses, it should also be noted that they are not random. The fact that they tend to be clustered around certain types of incidents or situations can be taken as a sign of the importance of international law as a constraint on behavior under certain circumstances.

[ February 20, 2003, 13:13: Message edited by: Elios ]

 

I'd like to point out that compliance to international law is not always volunteeringly. International law traces back to the customs of international affairs bach to the middle ages and it was first ducumented and summarised at the time of the mid-17th century.

In this time till now international common law was established (by continuing use in internerational relations over the years), for example the customs of how to treat ambassadors, royalties and the like. Eventually some these customs were documented in the Vienna Convention, however, they were as strict and obliging when still unwritten.

One of these unwritten rules is, for example, that a country that has obliged to join a treaty usually doesn't step back when there is a change in gvt in the period between changing and eventually ratifying it. That is the thought of maintaining reliability and credibility as a country - essential in international relations. However, that there are no sanctions, short of angry protest, does not mean this is not a violation of international law.

Generally you are right when you stress the equality of nations, this is indeed the cornerstone of international law, as documented in the UN charter. All countries are equal - the US are as much a sovereign country as russia or iraq (rogue state or not ).

That eventually is what the UN is about - it's the largest treaty system of collective security. Since no one, not even another country, how powerful however, has the right to force another country by use of military force to anything, the UN are there as an instrument to aid the weaker countries against agression from stronger countries. The UN maintain international peace and stability.
When Iraq occupied Kuwait the UN allowed the world community under US leadership to free Kuwait. That did not include the option to topple Saddam since that didn't find the acceptance of the arab countries. What I want to illustrate here is that international law is based on consensus, not majorities - this is the ultimate consequence from all members beeing equal as soverign countries.

I admit that the UN are an idealistic approach for international peace. The five permanent members of the UN are the victors of WW-II, the to enemy contries named in the charter are germany and japan. As a result of the war experience the UN have once and for all taken away the right of a country to go to war except for cases of self defence, preventionm of an imminent attack or with UN allowance.
Some also see the case of a "humanitarian intervention" as a possibility but since that happened only once till now (Kosovo, actually against international law yet justified with humanitarian reasons) it is unjustified to speak of international common law in this particaular justification since that would need repeated cases and a general acceptance.

Now when one country decides that they dislike the UN decision and prefer to act on their own they act criminally. Idealistic as ever, the UN don't have a receipe for what might happen when a policeman becomes a rogue. Actually I doubt that any of the countries who have signed the charter would have joined it if it had a rule to deal with that.
No country is altruistic, they obey to international law because it's useful for all and recognising that makes tem consent.

A country that thinks it can ignore the lack of consensus and seeking an advantage thanks to its own force and power is a rogue state.

[ February 20, 2003, 19:26: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa,

Nice leftist slant on that last part. You almost covered up your hatred of America.

Now for the right wing slant:

Reality of the UN: The UN is an organization that is paralyzed by the agendas of the security council members and their ability to unilaterally prevent any significant action, no matter how logical or reasonable that action is. In recent years it actually has attempted to diminish the sovereignty of certain nations, while also attempting to rob them of their wealth and providing it to support ruthless dictatorships in other countries. It is neither just nor impartial. It has produced such ridiculous decisions as taking the US of the human rights council while placing Pakistan and Somalia on it. It also was scheduled to place Iraq and Iran on the disarmament committee.

No country should support an organization that believes that it is that organization's duty to ensure that a murdering, raping, homicidal psychopath who uses chemical and biological agents on his own people is kept in power. The UN has lost sight of the spirit of its creation and found comfort in the letter of its charter. How can anyone hold faith in an organization that can be held hostage by simply buying the vote of one of its critical members? How anyone continue to believe in an organization that says that war is the last resort, but in reality it really isn't a resort at all because it will always give "just one more chance" before it uses it's ultimate weapon.

The time has come and gone for the UN, just as it has for NATO. The UN was flawed from inception, and its flaws have grown like a cancer. There should be some form of international organization to provide a meeting place for nations to attempt to prevent war, but the structure and power base of the UN has doomed it.

 

Hmmm... would that include UNESCO, UNICEF, UNHCR and the rest of the committees?

[ February 21, 2003, 09:37: Message edited by: Charlie ]

 

Elios, don't confuse him with evil foreign acronyms ....

Darkwolf, even when you don't like international law you will not change it. More, you'll have to live with it, like it or not. As for the paralysing, how is it that you only notice the affairs when america's policy is blocked by the UN and not when the UN is blocked by the US?

Do you only like to see what you want to see or is it just that you have never looked beyond the rim of the plate you're on? Let me tell you one thing: In international law the perspective "america first" doesn't work. And since international law is necessarily, as a result of the nations beeing sovereign and equal, of higher rank than national law you'll have to start to think different when you're discussing international law and policy. How about going to library and get yourself a nice lawbook?

Let me quote Chirac here Darkwolf: Shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Two words

Nuclear Weapons

Now you can't even leave a country to be away from stupid laws, they now follow you around the planet. Some people are just too insecure to leave others alone.

 

Darkwolf, it seems that you almost managed to cover up your hatred for the UN
The fact of the matter is that America is breaching the UN rules which they have agreed to, and the UN should be able to enforce these rules. A rogue policeman is as dangerous as a known criminal

 

First of Ragusa, I have been for the elimination of the UN since 1987. Up until that time I was a victim of public schools and believed that the great UN would be the saviors of the world and would eventually unite all nations under one government. What a crock! My beliefs on the UN have nothing to do with actual international law. That you equate international law with the UN shows how far down the well of that dogma that you have fallen. International law has been and always will be controlled by the powers that have the ability to enforce it. The UN has no ability to equally and fairly dispense justice because it is corrupt from the top! Its very structure states that 5 nations are exempt from its enforcement! And if you can bribe one of those five nations (and it happens all the time with all 5) it has no authority over you either. Can you not see that laws without enforcement are meaningless?

In more recent events, the vast majority of the EU members and candidates can see the threat and evil that exists in an Iraq controlled by Saddam. However, the French, making total asses of themselves, are trying to use every influence they can to oppress and intimidate the EU and its candidates, and abusing its veto power in the UN, so that they can profit from contracts and agreements made with Saddam that can only be construed as bribes! At least Russia and China are honest about it. China doesn't really care as long as we stay out of their sphere of influence, and Russia just wants to make sure that the money Iraq owes her is paid.

Where is the enforcement of international law on Saddam? 12 years and 17 UN resolution, and Saddam is still defying the UN's mandate. All because France can corrupt the entire judicial process of the UN with just one vote, and Saddam has bought France! Where is the public outcry? It has become painfully evident that the vast majority of civilized nations want the threat of Saddam eliminated. Yet in their greed, France, and their enablers, Germany, choose to defend this animal.

Please keep quoting Chirac. The person you choose too quote tells a lot about you! Right now Chirac (and pretty much most of the time) is about a popular in most EU countries as a leper in a nudist colony! What a pompous ass! Using implied threats of blocking EU candidate nations from membership because they either don't agree with the all-knowing French. I am sure that all the candidates are just salivating to be a member of that organization!

Finally, do you feel that spinning sensation? No that is not the world turning around France and Germany, that is France and Germany spinning around the drain! If they don't figure it out fast, the last international stage that they hold any power in will be meaningless.

 

Ouch! It's getting hot in here . . .

The way I see it, the UN made a resolution, and now is too gutless to back it up, so the US wants to. The UN is becoming as wishy-washy as the organization that preceded it, the League of Nations. Well meaning, but powerless. The US has learned, to its sorrow, that while it may not be powerless, it is not untouchable. There will be consequences for US military action overseas. That doesn't mean that some US actions overseas still aren't necessary, just that the US needs to be aware that their foes will strike back, sometimes using unconventional techniques. I'm not so sure that those techniques are quite as cowardly as the US would like to make them out to be -- who's the more cowardly, a person willing to die for their beliefs (however erroneous they may be), or a person willing to launch a missile and then go have a coffee?

 

Depaara,

I think you confuse fanatasism with bravery.

The statement you just made cost Bill Maher his job.

Just something to think about.

Other than that I agree with you. Not that it is much of an asset in this forum!

 

Darkwolf
I don't know how you came to this conclusion but according to a poll published in the french newspaper "Le Monde" the people of Europe are against this war

Germany - 71% against the war
Austria - 65% support war but with the approval of UN
Belgium - 84% against the war
Bulgary - 81% against the war
Danmark - 53% support the war
Spain - 91% against the war
France - 77% against the war
Greece - 88% against the war
Hungary - 82% against the war
Ireland - 68% against the war
Italy - 61% against the war
Sweden - 50% against the war
Switzerland - 83% against the war
Turkey - 94% against the war
Norway - 90% against the war
Holland - 80% against the war
Poland - 72% against the war
Portugal - 65% against the war
Czech Republic - 65% against the war
Romania - 70% against the war
Great Britain - 90% against the war
Slovakia - 57% against the war

[ February 21, 2003, 23:04: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

Hey, I like this Darkwolf guy. He knows how to show Ragusa his place.

Good distinction about international law vs. the U.N. Treaties and the like are international law as well.

Unfortunately (sarcasm there) the U.N. has no power to enforce its laws and policies. Therefore, it's hard to say that international law is "above" national law.

For example, what happens if the U.S. goes and ignores the U.N. if France vetoes action against Iraq? We say it's self-defense and/or a continuation of the Gulf War. What happens? Even if you could get everyone to agree to the International Criminal Court, so what? You put the U.S. on trial in absentia, find us guilty, and we continue to ignore you. What are you going to do about it? There are very few nations willing to join a force aimed at attacking the U.S. (either out of friendship or fear) and even fewer that would join trade sanctions.

And the same situation would arise if it were Britain (the U.N. never approved it taking back the Falklands) or France (Ivory Coast actions were not approved), etc. There is no one to enforce U.N. sanctions.

All it is useful for is providing some legitimization for organizing a coalition to lay the smack down on someone. But really, what good is U.N. authority when it takes just one of a very small group of nations to veto it's important actions? The U.S. could probably garner the support of a majority of nations in the U.N., but because France will object (I expect Russia and China will abstain) it all gets torpedos. Any organization that is run like that has no legitimacy whatsoever.

 

In my second post I pointed out the raw structures of international law, basically as teached in a first hour of the course "Introduction to International Law" in university. These basic structures are international consense, they are the same in the US, india, china and germany. Therefor my amusement and sarcasm when Darkwolf called me a "Leftist" for posting them.

Why I equate the UN with international law has a reason: They are the symbol for international law, an organisation of international law. When I stress the value of the UN charter as the cornerstone of international law I have a reason: Since international law is based on consensus a charter that was signed by more than 120 countries and is in existence and use for over 50 years you have to admit that the rules as laid down in the charter might be a little more than just an ordinary treaty. The UN charter is international law. The rules implemented have become international common law by the general acceptance and general use. Except for treaties that's the other way international law is made.

Why international law is of higher rank than national law? It has to be - it's a necessity. Imagine Country A signing a treaty with country B. Now Country B makes a law that declares all ogbligations from the treaty for irrelevant. Can that be an excuse for not obeying international law?
Internally that is strictly legal but internal hindrances are no excuse for not obeying international law. So?

You point out the crucial weakness of the UN, the five permanent members. The UN are a result of WW-II. The five permanent members are the victors of the war. Guess who most strongly opposed a reform of the council? The permanent members, namely the US.
They US accuse the UN to be paralysed, while not supporting efforts to reform it, knowing that can only be to their disadvantage. The US do not want a UN that has the power to judge them. They like to have the status of a permanent member. Like the devil the holy water the US fear instances that can judge over them - eventually they haven't jointed the jurisdiction of the International Court and the International Criminal Court for a reason. The US critic on the UN is hypochritical.

Why I still like the UN? It's better than nothing and of course better than unilateralism - that would mean the strongest nation takes what it likes, like Saddam taking Kuwait. That cannot be in the interest of the world.

[ February 24, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

International law is much more than you suggested. Look at the IC (an organ of the UN btw) : The verdicts are as obligating as international treaties - only that way an international dispute can be settled peacefully - with undisputed obligations for both sides.
When the US were about to be sentenced for their support of the Contras in Nicaragua they quickly left the jurisdiction of the IC
Why so, when international law has no meaning? Couldn't they simply have given a **** about the sentence in the knowledge of their superior strength? ... or maybe not ...?

While international law usually is about equals (that is, for centuries now, a question of status, not of power) meeting each other it also can also be the right of the strong to rule the weak - without (though usually after) using military force. That way around it worked after WW-II in Germany and Japan as well as it continues to do so in Iraq today.

For international law the number of aircraft carriers is irrelevant. That the US politically might get away with a violation of international law doesn't change anything about the illegality. Unlike me you are talking about politics.

You think too short BTA.

*IC = International Court

[ February 24, 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

BTA, I know you qualify your statements with "Partly" (e.g. "partly because they have power" and "partly because they don't have power", but it seems to me that you think it must be "mostly because" - since you don't bring up other reasons. I'm intrigued. Do you, in fact, think that the relative amount of power the different sides have is a dominant factor? It seems to me that, among European nations, willingness to go to war rather that using strategies of containment and appeasement is proportional to the degree that those countries were damaged by WWII. In France and Germany (and to a lesser degree England) people remember war in their own land, remember bombs dropping on homes in the night, monuments and churches of great emotional value destroyed in a heartbeat, and frightened young men - whether those be Canadian pilots or Jews - hidden in the cellars from an evil government. So the thought of war evokes quite different emotions than it does for the United States, whose popular war imagery seems to consist largely of triumphant soldiers alighting from trains, victory parades, and other "positive" images.

 

Where do you draw the line? What grants that a country that has the power to ignore international law at will with impunity remains a moral instance or is still?

Look back at Argentina, where the US toppled the elected president Peron because he was a *leftist* - clearly a violation of international law as Argentina was a sovereign country. The USA, the foothold of democracy, ignored the vote of a people to install a US friendly dictatorship there that butchered thousands.
It happened again in Chile and it can happen again. What is it that allows the US to interfere with foreign countries sovereignty? Moral superiority? Power? Where is that when you install a regime that tortures and murders or bringing a bloody civil war to another country by supporting guerrillas? I can't see it.

When the US want to be the world's policeman that's fine on first sight, but with one inherent risk: A cop who breaks the law is a threat to society, even when he is following the path of *justice*, even worse when he's not. So is a country, even when it can't be sentenced. That's the crucial problem.

International law, is the framework of international politics. At the same time it's the tool of politics, just as hopefully the use of military force.

The US people will have to be very watchful on their gvt when they want it to ignore international law. Mind that the only thing that would distinguish the US from a country led by a dictator like Iraq would be the political will - by international law the methods would be the same: Military agression.

That bears within quite a destabilising tendency. Why should a country still accept international law when the US don't care? Why should a country still respect the UN when it can't stop the US from breaking international law?

The US play a dangerous game with consequences they cannot even see yet when they take pressure on the UN by threatening to ignore its rules. That also damages the UN since it cannot deny the accusation to be a tool to the will of the US when it agrees and that questions the neutrality of the UN - one of the cornerstones of the UNs success as a negotiator for peace.

The US way to deal with the UN and international law is leading us into an even less stable world.

It will bring us a world with more terror since no country would be so stupid to openly face the US. A second 9/11 is guaranteed that way, and not only because not all terrorist have been shot in the first attack - a US policy like sketched above will spawn new ones, again and again.

I don't like that perspective. The world is a place bad enough with the UN and international law respected.
In my hometown I can still see the traces of what happens in a war, even about 60 years after the bombs dropped. War and international law both are things that shouldn't be taken lightly.

[ February 24, 2003, 21:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Might still makes right practically, but how can that be a good thing? We have seen again and again throughout history what that leads to. Ragusa image of the cop that enforces the law when it suits him and ignores them himself is very telling, except that the cop we are talking about have no boss. He just happens to be the only person in the neighbourhood with a gun. Does that give him the right to do exactly as he please? Even if most of what he does is good things.
International law and the UN may be highly flawed but it is the best and safest thing we have achieved throughout the history of man.
It is very dangerous for both the world if they insist on alienating themselves from the rest of the world, up to now they have gotten away with it because they have been quite generous and tried to follow the laws officially but if they continue on the path they are on now their allies will drop off and with Bush's either with us or against us how long does it take until France and Germany sit in the chair that Iraq is in now?