International Law

This post is written with a whole lot of cynical realism. It assumes that self-interest motivates more people and nations than anything else. It assumes that idealism works fine until it’s your ox being gored by the ideal, at which point in time, the ideal becomes anathema.

What is law? Think about this for a moment. Is law simply tradition? Is it an ethical system (of which there are several) or is it a divinely endorsed moral code (in which case there are maybe even more)? Does it have layers; are some laws divinely endorsed (Thou shalt not kill) while others unrelated to ethics at all (the Income Tax Code)? Is law a set of rules only? Maybe a set of rules back by the enforcement power of the sovereign? Is law a social contract for conduct in a society?

I ask because that question comes to mind every time I hear a well meaning pundit say, “international law.” Excuse me, but what is that other than a way of saying, “what I think is right?” “XYZ, the country, has done thus-and-so in violation of international law.” Really? Please show me the statute book, the codification of what sovereign nations may or may not do as passed by the International Parliament or maybe as dictated by His Imperial Majesty, Emperor of the World or maybe simply as decided by Matthew Harrison Brady (see Inherit the Wind.)? Oh wait, we don’t have those institutions. Well surely it will be enforced by the International Police and violators taken into custody by the International Sheriff and put in the International Prison while we wait to have a trial in the International Courthouse. Wait, we don’t have those either?

What do we have? Well we have treaties which are sort of like contracts you enforce with armies. We have the ability to conduct ourselves in our relationship with others, trading or not trading for example. We can try to get other nations to act as we do. Yet, none of that has the force of law. None of that meets the exactitude of law. None of that creates law.

If you really look at it, international law is a farce. It is a Weaver-esque “god-term” which sounds great, until you chip through the gold paint to realize the substance is balsa wood. A nation state may, at will, act as it chooses and if it doesn’t like the dictates of “International Law” as espoused by another, it may ignore them and laugh in their face. There is only a penalty, if whoever espouses “international law” can get enough others on their side to bring home a consequence to the “law” breaker. And if the breaker is one of the big kids… well, the same rules just do not apply.

International law is often espoused by those of the same liberal mindset who breathily talking about “human rights” over lattes and scones. They treat it as if it has an existence outside of the custom of the moment, a solidity beyond their own mind. Yet it doesn’t. As most often used, International Law springs from humanistic ideals about the inherent rights of people. The problem is that not everyone believes in those rights and when those unbelievers, those heretics to the church of International Law, act according to their beliefs, we condemn them for their violation of the law. We say law because it sounds much more serious than to say they violated what we think or even they violated our philosophy. If we say law we sound more authoritative and sure. We sound like we are espousing something that exists beyond simply our opinion. Laws, we all know, must be obeyed. Or else.

But what is the or else here? If we call our ethical system and beliefs (including the belief that we can impose our humanistic system of rights on others in spite of their rights to self-determination (which only apply when they agree with us about having it)) law, then we devalue the concept of law. Equating your opinion to law means that real law has no more force that your opinion; no more independent existence than any other though of yours. It would not have to be obeyed. Tell that to the next sheriff, policeman, or judge you meet.

If you look back at the beginning, I offered one possible definition of law as a social contract. This may be the closest to International Law. If all nations operated under the social contract as did their citizens, you might actually have something that could be considered a law. I just don’t think we are enough there to call it International Law.

Today's Headline

The BBC.com site had this little gem today: "Will British Troops Succeed in Afghanistan?"

Ah, sometimes a sense of history is awesome. Names change, but the questions remain.

Nukes

Heard yesterday that the U.S. and the Russians signed an understanding that we would each reduce our nuclear stock piles by about 1/3. Iran continues to enrich or try to enrich Uranium. North Korea has nukes and is test firing missiles. Pakistan has nukes and a leaky history about them. China and India have nukes. Great Britain has nukes as do the French.

In 1921, the great powers of that day met in Washington, D.C. for the Washington Naval Conference. That conference led to the Washington Naval Treaty which decided that Great Britain, the U.S., and Japan would build battleships in a 5-5-3 ratio respectively. It also limited the number of ships and the armaments of each ship, which, in turn, caused the scrapping of older ships and reduction in the size of a number of navies. It was designed to prevent antagonism between the two naval super powers of that day, Great Britain and the U.S. In a way, it was the START treaty of its day.

In as much as Great Britain and the U.S. had their fleets divided all over the oceans of the world whereas the Japanese only had a fleet in the Pacific, it lead directly to Japanese naval superiority in that ocean. Many historians believe that this fact was a key fact in the aggressive Japanese policy which ultimately led to Pearl Harbor and Japan's involvement in World War Two.

In 1921 we were reducing the number of battleships and, in so doing, created the greatest naval conflict the world has ever seen. Now we are playing with nuclear weapons, the least of which dwarfs any battleship in destructive power. I've read quite a bit on the monstrous effects of nuclear weapons and I'll be the first to admit, I hate the things. However, I would hate more a situation where we don't have any, but our enemies do. I am not against a reduction in the inventory, but I wish I thought our policy makers had paid a bit more attention in their history classes.