How Is International Law to be Enforced?

[Sebastianlobo]

From the Middle East to Africa, through Balkans tec... Almost anywhere in the world elementary principles of human right are in flagrant violation of what has, hitherto, been deemed as fundamental right of the human being. UNSC resolutions , when not vetoed due to interests of the vetoing country, are selcom put into practice. In Rwanda over 8oo thousad people died im a massacre / civil war that could have been avoided if the SC had acted promptly. What is the sense of having a law which cannot be enforced>

[Eclogite]

What is the sense of having a law which cannot be enforced>

Point 1: It can be enforced if their is sufficient will.

Point 2: It provides a measure of how far we fall short of our potential humanity.

[Sebastianlobo]

(1) Enforced by whom or by which ageencies? (2) Will this potential ever be fulffiled? SL

[TheBigDog]

International law is not intended to be enforced. It is used as moral authority or moral high ground only. Take the case of Iraq, and the 12 years of violating resolutions. As soon as the US stepped in and took action those who both opposed the Iraqi position and the US response could get on a moral high horse and say that they had been working on a solution, but it just needed more time. It's only purpose is insulating the impotent from the burden or real action and providing a safe place from which to point fingers.

 

Bill

[Sebastianlobo]

International law is not intended to be enforced. It is used as moral authority or moral high ground only. Take the case of Iraq, and the 12 years of violating resolutions. As soon as the US stepped in and took action those who both opposed the Iraqi position and the US response could get on a moral high horse and say that they had been working on a solution, but it just needed more time. It's only purpose is insulating the impotent from the burden or real action and providing a safe place from which to point fingers.

 

Bill

I don't quite understand your point. What is the sense of a law that is not supposed to be enforced? Are suggesting that, say, Criminal Law is not intended to be enforced? On the other hand, the impotence of those supposedly respondible for enforcing International Law is the main issue to be addressed. How could we put an end to it? I fully realize it is a far more complex topic, maybe we could start another thread.SL

[TheBigDog]

I don't quite understand your point. What is the sense of a law that is not supposed to be enforced? Are suggesting that, say, Criminal Law is not intended to be enforced? On the other hand, the impotence of those supposedly respondible for enforcing International Law is the main issue to be addressed. How could we put an end to it? I fully realize it is a far more complex topic, maybe we could start another thread.SL

I am saying that international law is pointless becasue it cannot be enforced, and those who make the laws know that. I made no inference to criminal law, as the topic and my statement were specific to international law. Any international law depends upon the good will of the signers to abide by those laws. Criminal law has methods of enforcement while international law does not, aside from occational sanctions, and the wooping sticks of the ballsier members. That is until they are told that acting on the promise of military action is worse than letting people just break the laws to begin with.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

In other words, both history and international law are written by the winners.

 

Although I agree with BigDog ( :cup: ) that international law is not designed to be enforced, I don't think it's wholly without merit. It does establish a sort "rules you need to play by" kind of frame work - but then, if you're powerful enough to break the rules, then you can pretty much do so with impunity.

 

In a contrary example, witness the US's flagrant violations of it in extraordinary rendition, Gitmo, etc.

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

In other words, both history and international law are written by the winners.

History is written by the winners. International law is written by the fence sitters for the losers.

 

It is always nice to find a spot where our orbits cross, Stone. :cup:

 

Bill

[Southtown]

In a contrary example, witness the US's flagrant violations of it in extraordinary rendition, Gitmo, etc.

 

TFS

"Gitmo, etc"? Could you be more specific?

[TheFaithfulStone]

"Gitmo, etc"? Could you be more specific?

 

I think Guantanamo Bay, the practice of extraordinary rendition, and some of the other tactics that the US uses in the War on Terror are against international law.

 

Laws are (or should be) written to protect the weak from the strong - so in a sense, BigDog is right that they are written by fence sitters for losers.

 

And in a sense, I'm right, in that international law is a "stick" used by powerful countries to do what they want to do anyway. We can impose sanctions on N. Korea or Afghanistan for violating international law, but no one is going to impose sanctions on US for doing so.

 

In other words, international law isn't like regular law - because it's primary (or only) purpose is to provide a post-hoc justification for whatever it is you wanted to do in the first place.

 

That said, I think it's good to have a set of ground rules - largely so that the winners can get rid of the losers at the end of the battle. For example, if there were no Geneva convention, under what legal pretext would we have executed all those Nazi's?

 

TFS

[Southtown]

For example, if there were no Geneva convention, under what legal pretext would we have executed all those Nazi's?

 

TFS

Innocent until proven guilty, I say. Under what legal pretext would we have been prosecuted for executing Nazis?

 

And if Gitmo's only crime is violating the Geneva Convention, it would not involve prisoners who are admitted terrorists. They do not qualify under the Convention in many ways. They are not a country, they do not wear uniforms, they do not fight out in the open but in the midst of their own civilans, etc.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The Geneva Convention applies to Guantanamo Bay. So sayeth the Supreme Court.

 

The point was that without international law to execute Nazi's as war criminals, we would have had to do it "just because." Not that they didn't deserve it, mind, but there wouldn't have been any legal backing for the action.

 

TFS

[Southtown]

The Geneva Convention applies to Guantanamo Bay. So sayeth the Supreme Court.

 

The point was that without international law to execute Nazi's as war criminals, we would have had to do it "just because." Not that they didn't deserve it, mind, but there wouldn't have been any legal backing for the action.

 

TFS

So sayeth the majority of Supreme Justices, and on what grounds I wonder. I am not of the school of thought that the SC can rewrite legislation as they see fit.

[Sebastianlobo]

I think Guantanamo Bay, the practice of extraordinary rendition, and some of the other tactics that the US uses in the War on Terror are against international law.

 

Laws are (or should be) written to protect the weak from the strong - so in a sense, BigDog is right that they are written by fence sitters for losers.

 

And in a sense, I'm right, in that international law is a "stick" used by powerful countries to do what they want to do anyway. We can impose sanctions on N. Korea or Afghanistan for violating international law, but no one is going to impose sanctions on US for doing so.

 

In other words, international law isn't like regular law - because it's primary (or only) purpose is to provide a post-hoc justification for whatever it is you wanted to do in the first place.

 

That said, I think it's good to have a set of ground rules - largely so that the winners can get rid of the losers at the end of the battle. For example, if there were no Geneva convention, under what legal pretext would we have executed all those Nazi's?

 

TFS

Good point.Reminds me of Churchill's remark on the Nurenberg Trials - " We'd better win the next war". SL

[HydrogenBond]

International laws are enforced with brow beatings. But since only stick and stones can break bones but names can never hurt you, many opportunists just ignor mother UN and her time outs. If big daddy took off his belt, that would make them think twice. The big daddy's with belts are the superpowers. Mother UN brow beat big daddy while he uses the belt to enforce the law. Big Daddy give her money to shut her up.

[TheFaithfulStone]

So sayeth the majority of Supreme Justices, and on what grounds I wonder. I am not of the school of thought that the SC can rewrite legislation as they see fit.

 

Does it matter? Unless you want to be a scofflaw, that's the way it is now. The matter is legally settled.

 

Somebody wise once said that the definition of an "activist judge" was one who actively disagreed with the accuser.

 

TFS

[Freddy]

So sayeth the majority of Supreme Justices, and on what grounds I wonder. I am not of the school of thought that the SC can rewrite legislation as they see fit.

 

What legislation do you refer to? It is my understanding the US is treaty bound to follow the Geneva Convention. It is also my understanding the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases arising out of the federal government.