NationStates Jolt Archive

The thought for today is international law. I've stumbled across various repeated references to it throughout these threads, and have come to a conclusion that we really have to figure something out about this topic.

First we need to decide whether there is even any such thing as international law. First off we face the arguement that the international arena is in a state of anarchy, there is no sovreign, just independent individual states.

But, on the other hand, we have international treaties and the like.

But the other side retorts that the treaties are only enforceable by the individual states, as such, we still have a state of anarchy.

Then comes the UN counter, but whether the UN is an international sovreign or not is highly debateable, and as such can be covered in this arena.

So, if we decide that there is such a thing as international law, which is certainly not decided of yet, then we might move on to how is international law formed. Is it formed by an agreement of all nations, or just a select few, or just a hegemon? Does an organization such as NATO make the laws, does the UN make the laws? Should certain government types line up to make the laws? Do treaties make the laws? What, how does this work?

Next, who enforces these laws? A union of democracies? A global organization? A hegemon? Who?

And finally, what should these laws be?

Laws can only exist when there is a general respect for them and their purpose. Since very few nations have respect for the international laws (except when they are harmed by a rule breaker) I think you can argue that they don't exist.

You confuse law with enforcement.
Some laws in your own country are unenforceable. They still exist.
Example : I'm smoking a pot right now and it is not legal to do so. The cops can't do a thing about it because they don't know. I'm also downloading copyrighted movies on the internet. Can we argue that copyright laws don't exist?

You confuse law with enforcement.
Some laws in your own country are unenforceable. They still exist.
Example : I'm smoking a pot right now and it is not legal to do so. The cops can't do a thing about it because they don't know. I'm also downloading copyrighted movies on the internet. Can we argue that copyright laws don't exist?
I think you might be confusing my points. Inside your nation there is a sovreign who can theoretically punish you for doing these things. In the international arena, there is no sovereign.

I think you might be confusing my points. Inside your nation there is a sovreign who can theoretically punish you for doing these things. In the international arena, there is no sovereign.
Sometimes there is.
For instance, the EU was allowed to punish the US with tariffs during the steel scandal. The US was allowed to attack Iraq in the Koweit campaign.
The WTO, the UN and other organisations are sovereign.
They can theoretically punish unlawful acts, but they don't always can practically without causing too much damage.

Sometimes there is.
For instance, the EU was allowed to punish the US with tariffs during the steel scandal. The US was allowed to attack Iraq in the Koweit campaign.
The WTO, the UN and other organisations are sovereign.
But those punishments inflicted on the US by the EU are punishments among equals. There is no overarching authority that sets what the punishments will be. It's like if I were to whack you with a baseball bat, and you were to club me with a board in retaliation.

The sovreignity of the UN is questionable. I ask, where is the UN's army? Can the UN itself (not component nations) punish someone? Just some of my gripes.

If int'l law does exist, I say meddle with it the least.

The thought for today is international law. I've stumbled across various repeated references to it throughout these threads, and have come to a conclusion that we really have to figure something out about this topic.

First we need to decide whether there is even any such thing as international law. First off we face the arguement that the international arena is in a state of anarchy, there is no sovreign, just independent individual states.

But, on the other hand, we have international treaties and the like.

But the other side retorts that the treaties are only enforceable by the individual states, as such, we still have a state of anarchy.

Then comes the UN counter, but whether the UN is an international sovreign or not is highly debateable, and as such can be covered in this arena.

So, if we decide that there is such a thing as international law, which is certainly not decided of yet, then we might move on to how is international law formed. Is it formed by an agreement of all nations, or just a select few, or just a hegemon? Does an organization such as NATO make the laws, does the UN make the laws? Should certain government types line up to make the laws? Do treaties make the laws? What, how does this work?

Next, who enforces these laws? A union of democracies? A global organization? A hegemon? Who?

And finally, what should these laws be?

There is no "real" international law because there is no body that can enforce it.

International law can't really exist, becuase it requires for the various nations to give soveriegn power over to a larger organizational body. At the point where this body has enough power so that they could begin enforcing laws, the original nations will have lost their soveriegnty. At this point the various nations are merely states/provinces/territories/holdings/fast-food places/whatever of the larger body, and no longer have true self-government.

But those punishments inflicted on the US by the EU are punishments among equals. There is no overarching authority that sets what the punishments will be. It's like if I were to whack you with a baseball bat, and you were to club me with a board in retaliation.

Actually, the WTO had to authorize the sanctions that the EU wanted to put on the US. So, there is an overarching authority that aprooves what the punishment will be.

Actually, the WTO had to authorize the sanctions that the EU wanted to put on the US. So, there is an overarching authority that aprooves what the punishment will be.

But... the authority only exists as long as the participants agree that the WTO has that authority. The WTO lacks the authority to act on its own without the consent of the members.

But... the authority only exists as long as the participants agree that the WTO has that authority. The WTO lacks the authority to act on its own without the consent of the members.
True. But that doesn't change the fact that the WTO has agreed upon overarching authorithy.

Any law for that matter comes from the principle that we agree upon it and that the other side has power to enforce it. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that gives the government the right to enforce law except that we,as a society, agreed that it could do so. Same thing for international law. The global society that is the world agrees upon a set of parameters and that's internationnal law.

As such, I think Int. law exists but is really weak as no country wants to cede some of it's power to a governing body outside of it's country.

The thought for today is international law. I've stumbled across various repeated references to it throughout these threads, and have come to a conclusion that we really have to figure something out about this topic.

First we need to decide whether there is even any such thing as international law. First off we face the arguement that the international arena is in a state of anarchy, there is no sovreign, just independent individual states.

But, on the other hand, we have international treaties and the like.

But the other side retorts that the treaties are only enforceable by the individual states, as such, we still have a state of anarchy.

Then comes the UN counter, but whether the UN is an international sovreign or not is highly debateable, and as such can be covered in this arena.

So, if we decide that there is such a thing as international law, which is certainly not decided of yet, then we might move on to how is international law formed. Is it formed by an agreement of all nations, or just a select few, or just a hegemon? Does an organization such as NATO make the laws, does the UN make the laws? Should certain government types line up to make the laws? Do treaties make the laws? What, how does this work?

Next, who enforces these laws? A union of democracies? A global organization? A hegemon? Who?

And finally, what should these laws be?

If you are speaking from the US point of view. Yes, there is "international law"... In that, treaties which the US has entered into, in accordance with Article IV of the US Constitution, are considered "The Supreme Law of the Land"... Thus, there is International law. (This includes the UN Charter, and laws which it has passed). Given they are "treaties" and thus, being entered into by the proper authority of the United States, are thereby enforceable upon that authority as the Supreme Law, as long as we remain party to such.

I think international law like for example the WTO have very large authority. Also you got multinationallaw or regional law that are not globale but affect alot of country. Like for example the EU that have a lot of power, but with the problem that it is hard to affect the decision. Like for example that many of the decisionmakers like for example the eu court and the eu commision is indirectly elected. Also the fact that EU has a very neoliberal agenda that is really hard to change. This problems make me dislike the increasing power EU is getting over memberstate.

Personally I still like and think that we need international and multinational organisation and laws to tacle international problems. But that needs democratic controll and ability to the people to rally over the nationalborders because a big problem today is that even if you have multinationell organisations there is little coperation between the people in the membersstate to together affect the organisation.

True. But that doesn't change the fact that the WTO has agreed upon overarching authorithy.

Any law for that matter comes from the principle that we agree upon it and that the other side has power to enforce it. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that gives the government the right to enforce law except that we,as a society, agreed that it could do so. Same thing for international law. The global society that is the world agrees upon a set of parameters and that's internationnal law.

As such, I think Int. law exists but is really weak as no country wants to cede some of it's power to a governing body outside of it's country.

I would have to agree that 'international Law' exists as well... but, that's a bit like agreeing that the myth of Santa Claus exists. (The myth, not the [/i]man[/i] exists)

The great difficulty with International Law, is that it has no teeth, and when it is given teeth, you create a non-accountable "Supernation" that is going to be more often than not detrimental.
There's just a practical limit to how much authority can be accumulated in one place at a single time and still retain some independence on the human scale.
The British Empire made Great Britain wealthy, but (by scale) it almost Broke Great Britain's Back to maintain. I would submit that the creation of a Global Authority with real power would result in a tyranny-because it would have to to force the memberstates to accept its authority. All Law is based, in the end, on the ability to employ force. The force necessary to hold 6 billion people to the law, is significant. I would wager that no authority could do so without using thermonuclear weapons-at least, at the outset, to prove it is serious.

The sovreignity of the UN is questionable. I ask, where is the UN's army? Can the UN itself (not component nations) punish someone? Just some of my gripes.

As far as I know, the idea behind the UN is that it is backed by its component nations. If it was not, then how could it stand on its own? There's a reason why it's called the "United Nations", and not, say, the "Independent International Watchdog". Without its members, it cannot function; and that is precisely why it is so fragile. Its more powerful members (the US) can screw the entire system over without any fear.

International law exists. Its easy to say something doesnt exist if you make up an incorrect definition for it then attempt to apply your subjective definition to it and then exclaim "see? the definition doesnt fit!". That has nothing to do with the facts however. Law does not require someone of higher stature to make them or enforce them. In a small society, like a village for example, the law can easily be decided by all of the members of the village, and those who break it can be judged by all and sentenced by all. This is among equals. As the society gets larger and larger, this becomes less and less feasible, but it still remains the very basis of the legal system. Thats why all criminal cases are "the people vs ________". It is still equals judging each other, but because of the size of the society and the case load it isnt feasible for every member of society to participate, so there has been a system of judges and juries and law enforcement set in place, along with a legislative branch to make the laws. When you speak of the international arena, the number of sovereign nations numbers in the hundreds, not in the millions, it is still feasible and prefferable for the legal system of nations to involve discussion between all of them as equals.

You confuse law with enforcement.
Some laws in your own country are unenforceable. They still exist.
Example : I'm smoking a pot right now and it is not legal to do so. The cops can't do a thing about it because they don't know. I'm also downloading copyrighted movies on the internet. Can we argue that copyright laws don't exist?

its not a question of enforcement.. what your describing though IS enforcement.. but the fellow your responding to is speaking of LEGITIMACY... laws dont actually exist (while physically they may, in essence they dont) if the majority of followers.. dont.. follow. Would the government be a government if everyone ignored it.. or everyone practiced communism while the so called "government" called itself democratic ??

Some middle eastern countries call themselves democracies even though no real democratic elections take place and no democractic institutions exist... are they democracies just because they call them democracies ? the answer inevitably is no! So the same is with International law... while some tout it as an absolute reality.. if the masses at large dont recognize it giving it legitmacy.. it is not credible and so does not exist in essence.