International Law 101
04.03.2003I've been engaged in an ongoing email debate regarding "international law" and what it means. I stand by the assertion that - in the broader meaning of the word - there's no such thing as international law. At least not the way many think of it.
It's difficult for those of us raised in a Western society to understand. After all, we live in a society that enjoys the "rule of law" and its benefits. We take for granted that laws are enforced. That's why almost all Americans pay their taxes. It's the law. You're supposed to. I often find it difficult to explain that in most countries in the world, states have a very difficult time collecting taxes. Last year Bolivia had a good year; it achieved roughly 25 percent compliance - in the urban areas. And Bolivia doesn't have an income tax system, just sales tax. It's very common to ask a salesperson to ring something up "sin factura" (w/o a sales receipt).
In the US, Europe, and other advanced countries, we take laws for granted. Even the minor ones. We have courts and police forces ready to enforce laws. If you park in a no-parking zone, you'll probably get a ticket. If your neighbors have a loud party past 11pm, you can call the police and they'll come and issue a noise violation. It's so simple.
We assume the same is true in the international arena. After all, there are countless treaties and conventions (Geneva, Kyoto, Rio). A decade before the First World War, the great powers joined together to outlaw war. All those Security Council resolutions calling for this and urging that. All the formal meetings that resemble the meetings of our parliaments. It must be international law. Right? No.
International law, like common law, has existed for millennia. It's a set of norms of behavior that states supposedly follow. But there's no enforcement mechanism. There's no state that wields a monopoly over the means of coercion. There's no automatic mechanism of state that can enforce compliance.
Imagine the world as a village (a "global" village). Each family lives in its own house. Some families are bigger than others. Each family has a different religion, different way of running its domestic affairs, &tc. Some neighbors have disputes about various things (often about property lines). But most of the time, the village gets along OK.
Let's even say that the families agree on some sets of "laws" regarding how they'll treat each other. You can't barge into someone's house, for example, unless you're invited in. Basic rules of polite behavior. Some of the families have gone further and even share their wealth w/ each other or established farming cooperatives. But, no matter. For the most part, each household is free to do as it wants w/ its parcel of land.
Now, imagine that one of the villagers broke into his neighbor's house, set fire to the drapes, roughed up the man's wife, and stole the family's heirloom silver candlesticks. What now?
He can't call the police (the village doesn't have one). There's no mayor or city council. The villagers all agree that each household is equally sovereign. He could call for a village meeting and let the various families decide what to do. But the meeting can't be held until Friday evening (and it's only Tuesday). And he'll probably have to make cookies and punch and find a place for everyone to sit.
What if the person whose house was broken into isn't very popular? Few want to help him right this wrong. Some even think maybe he shouldn't flaunt his silver candlesticks; that made his neighbor very jealous. Some argue that barging into the house to retrieve the silver candlesticks would only make the neighbor angrier, causing more trouble in the future. And the debate goes on.
Some propose that the villagers sign a petition asking the burgler to kindly please return the stolen candlesticks. A week later, there's no reply. The villagers decide to send a delegation. They knock on the door and ask to be invited in; they've brought a casserole for the man's family. They don't see the candlesticks and the burgler insists he never took them. The delgation reports another week later that they've no evidence the candlesticks are at the house.
The poor guy is incensed. Won't someone help him get his candlesticks back? He saw the other guy take them. It's so obvious. So our poor guy (who often acts as informal town sherif) gets his shotgun down from the mantle, calls his best friend Tony, and decides to go do it himself. The villagers beg him to stop. "We'll write another letter!" they plead. "This one will have more exclamation points."
What should the poor bloke whose house was burgled do? Can he act w/o the consent of all the villagers? Can he act w/ the consent of some of them? Does he need anyone's consent? There's no higher authority for him to call. What is he to do?
Posted by Miguel at 02:33 PM
Comments
He is not looking for candlesticks but for a machine gun. It wasn't stolen but sold by the informal sherif and some of the villagers.
By now he has dismantled half of the house. The machine gun has not been found. By now the sherif has accused a neighbour of the suspected criminal to hide the machine gun for him. That neighbour has a history of disliking both parties.
By now, basically the sherif has announced that hew would have to look into every of the neighbours houses. Some of the other villagers are questioning the motif of the sherif. Maybe he just wants the soil in that area of the village. The village urges for a meeting to discuss everything before more harm is done. It wonders why it should pay for rebuilding the house.
Posted by: Marco at April 4, 2003 04:57 AM
There is no higher authority in that village. But there is the set of rules they all agreed on.
Joint action is the only way to really SOLVE the problem since the current dismantling is likely to stirr up suspicions, mabe hatred and violence. The sherif might be accidentally starting a feud in the village.
However, some heads are still calm and rational and these people try to set up a neutral commission to investigate the matter.
Posted by: Marco at April 4, 2003 05:05 AM
This got a little too long. I like the village analogy and wrote my own version of it. You can find it here
Posted by: Marco at April 4, 2003 11:15 AM
"Now, imagine that one of the villagers broke into his neighbor's house, set fire to the drapes, roughed up the man's wife, and stole the family's heirloom silver candlesticks."
Are you writing abt Al Qaeda being the burglar? If so, yes, agreed.
If you're writng that Iraq was the burglar, then you got it wrong.
Posted by: Steph at April 4, 2003 01:12 PM
You've missed the point. The analogy wasn't about al Qaeda or Iraq. The point was that international law is only enforced by the will of those who'd enforce it.
The "global" village is not a kindergarten where we learn to share and solve our problems together. It's not a commune where we all respect each other. It's just a place where people happen to live together. And it can be very dangerous. And no one's in charge.
Posted by: miguel at April 4, 2003 01:29 PM
The point was that international law is only enforced by the will of those who'd enforce it.
I think that is a little off. Others want to enforce international law as well, but for one after the conviction, secondly, they may not choose the death penalty as punishment for a burglary.
Posted by: Melli at April 5, 2003 01:03 AM
yes. emphatically: "international law is only enforced by the will of those who would enforce it". According to Andrew Altman, international law was more or less a way of holding the Nazis responsible for war crimes during the Nuremburg trials. It is this arbitrary tendency, (or return to Austinian command theory) that makes me doubt, along with the critical legal studies camp, that the legal core is more than ethical and political imstrumentalization. but there goes my rampant skepticism again... -emily k.
Posted by: emily, really. at April 7, 2003 12:53 PM