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]