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.