Much of the talk about the rule of law, at least in international politics seems to be but a mere convenience to be followed when international law happens to be in favour of a countries policies. When it becomes inconvenient to the national policy or doctrine, then the rule of law becomes an obsolete antiquated legal fixture, or international meddling in a sovereign countries affairs.
The US is rather notorious for this dubious commitment to the international rule of law.
“The United States contempt for international law is neither new nor an aberration but a long standing tradition between both democrats and republicans in the United States.
In another stunning example of human rights abuse by the United States is the case of Khaled El-Masri. Who happened to have the misfortune of having the same name as a terror suspect. He was subsequently kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan and was tortured and sodomosied.(4)
“Masri’s treatment at Skopje airport at the hands of the CIA rendition team — being severely beaten, sodomised, shackled and hooded, and subjected to total sensory deprivation — had been carried out in the presence of state officials of [Macedonia] and within its jurisdiction,” the European Court of Human Rights ruled. (Idid.)
When the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States in 1986 in favour of Nicaragua and found the United States was guilty of many international laws and human rights violations it simply upped and walked away from the court. (5)
The US benches were empty when the court announced its decision. Among the Nicaraguan delegates was the Foreign Minister, Father Miguel d’Escoto, who said he hoped that the verdict would help the Americans to re-evaluate their position and stop defying the law and the court.
Dutch legal experts argue that the decision is legally binding on the US, despite the American refusal to recognise the court’s jurisdiction. One said: ‘The USA has always recognised the ICJ. It should have changed its position earlier if it wanted to duck the court in this case.
‘It is a well-known principle of international law that, if a country submits to the jurisdiction of a court, it cannot sidestep the court after the judges have started their work,’ a professor of international law at Amsterdam University said. (Ibid.)”
I’d like to live in a world where concepts such as the rule of law actually exist in a state where they applied equally to all parties involved. The state of the world precludes this fair application of the rules at the moment and it should be taken into account when appeals to the ‘rule of law’ are made.
[Source:Counterpunch]
6 comments
September 19, 2018 at 8:11 am
john zande
I must say, it’s both fascinating and terrifying to see a man, Trump, acting as if above the law. This is behaviour we’re not used to.
LikeLike
September 19, 2018 at 12:07 pm
The Arbourist
Is it so? Trump acts without the expected imperial grace and diplomacy of an imperial leader. But is the fist without the velvet glove so hard to reconcile? I must admit the the insipid is off the charts with DT but, is it really that much different foreign policy-wise?
LikeLiked by 2 people
September 19, 2018 at 12:10 pm
john zande
Moreso on the foreign stage. Without an international govt/law enforcement it’s all just pieces of paper.
LikeLike
September 20, 2018 at 6:45 am
bleatmop
As nice as international law sounds in theory it is a joke in practice. Saudi Arabia being on the UN human rights council is the perfect example of this, for reasons I shouldn’t need to explain. When some of the worst actors in the world for human rights are a part of those creating laws for human rights it kinda makes the whole thing a joke.
Also there is the issue of non-compliance with international court decisions. Everyone from the USA to Iran have ignored every ruling against them but hold up every ruling in their favour as some sort of victory. Hell, Canada has won every trade ruling when it comes to softwood lumber, but somehow it doesn’t make a difference. These rules can only be enforced at the end of a barrel of a gun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 22, 2018 at 12:20 pm
The Arbourist
@Bleatmop
Feeling a bit cynical today? :)
LikeLike
September 22, 2018 at 2:21 pm
bleatmop
@sardeth
Nothing new really. Just how I’ve felt about international law for a long time. No nation, not even Canada, simply follows international law when it doesn’t suit them. Hell, even current Trudeau only gives lip service to it when he wants to while violating it at the exact same time. For example see Trudeau praising the decision that Khadar got in court; saying that Canada can’t violate the law while at the exact same time pushing through sale of APC’s to Saudi Arabia, an act that has been deemed in violation of international law in respect to human rights violations.
And that’s just the tame examples. Hell, Russia just outright annexed the Crimea and blatantly defied anyone to do anything about it. The only thing that was going to stop him was the barrel of a gun; a dangerous thing to try against a nuclear superpower. Last time I checked the whole of Western Europe only said that Putin was acting naughty but stopped short of condemning him for fear of having their natural gas and oil supply shut off.
So basically I think of international law as a paper tiger. It looks and sounds impressive until after it makes a ruling and is completely ineffectual at doing anything to enforce those rulings. And a law is only as good as it’s enforcement, which in this case is close to zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person