When did int'l law become uncool?

[DaShi]

Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist
In discussions of the Iranian nuclear programme, people often ask why Iran has any less right to nuclear weapons than America. I always reply that the Iranians have voluntarily signed away their right to nukes under the NPT, whereas the Yanks have not. No-one has yet found this a satisfying answer. Evidently, int'l agreements aren't considered morally binding in my circles.

You answered your own question.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Near as I can tell, neither the UN apparatus nor any of the major powers agree to your notion of "national sovereignty".

Be that as it may, I can always mention it to the friends allude to and see if they agree, next time the subject comes up.

really?

The UN Charter, Chapter 1, Article II:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters

Pay special attention to the first one.

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by GePap

Pay special attention to the first one.

For the record, it only affirms "principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members", without specifying that GePap's (or anyone else's) interpretation thereof applies.

But actions speak louder than words, and even those opposing measures against Iran or Iraq act and have acted as if treaties ceding the right to certain weapon types are binding, national sovereignty be damned.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist

For the record, it only affirms "principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members", without specifying that GePap's (or anyone else's) interpretation thereof applies.

Well, you have given no interpretation of the notion of national sovereignty whatsoever, at least not one you have posted on this thread.

Do you have a notion of soverignty to share in whcih one state wuold have greater rights than any other?

But actions speak louder than words, and even those opposing measures against Iran or Iraq act and have acted as if treaties ceding the right to certain weapon types are binding, national sovereignty be damned.

Jesus:

fromt the NPT itself:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Treaties are binding agreements, but as the NPT and every other treaty states in its wording, the principle of soverignty is ALWAYS paramount.

No state can sign away its basic soverignty - that is a tenet of basic international law as it stands, which is what you brough up, just as current thinking on human right states that no man can sign a contract to become a slave.

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by GePap


Well, you have given no interpretation of the notion of national sovereignty whatsoever, at least not one you have posted on this thread.

I promise to give one when I make an argument from national sovereignty.

Jesus:

fromt the NPT itself:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Treaties are binding agreements, but as the NPT and every other treaty states in its wording, the principle of soverignty is ALWAYS paramount.

No state can sign away its basic soverignty - that is a tenet of basic international law as it stands, which is what you brough up, just as current thinking on human right states that no man can sign a contract to become a slave.

Did you copy the wrong paragraph? That one says that a country may leave the NPT, not that it may have nukes while a signatory of the treaty (and not being one of the original nuclear powers).

But my original argument isn't about legal niceties. It's the very simple moral argument that the Iranians have promised not to have nukes, and that them having them would therefore be naughty. Even if going nuclear without leaving the treaty first is somehow within the letter of their promise, it certainly isn't within the spirit.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Did you copy the wrong paragraph? That one says that a country may leave the NPT, not that it may have nukes while a signatory of the treaty (and not being one of the original nuclear powers).

Given that there is no dispute that non-nuclear state signatories stated they would not seek nuclear weapons, posting that paragraphs is irrelevant.

But my original argument isn't about legal niceties.

You claimed it was abolut International Law, not international morality.

It's the very simple moral argument that the Iranians have promised not to have nukes, and that them having them would therefore be naughty.Even if going nuclear without leaving the treaty first is somehow within the letter of their promise, it certainly isn't within the spirit.

Your statement is demostrably false.

Every article in the NPT is of equal standing. Every state signed the NPT knowing that article X existed, so every state that signed the NPT and agreed under it not to develop nuclear weapons did so knowing that the treaty they signed assumed that if a state felt it critical to develop nuclear wepons, they could do so by leaving the treaty.

[Odin]

I agree with VJ that International "law" is a fvcking joke. I remember both many of us anti-war people and a lot of the the Bush apologists bringing up international law (The US is violating international law! Saddam is violating international law!) as a way to support or criticize the war. In other words, international "law" seems to exist as a charade done because it is taboo for a diplomat to admit his/her country is doing something to further it's own interests, Diplomats use international law as a way to invent causus belli or to criticize an invented causus belli in order to conform the the taboo.

[Darius871]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by GePap
Every article in the NPT is of equal standing. Every state signed the NPT knowing that article X existed, so every state that signed the NPT and agreed under it not to develop nuclear weapons did so knowing that the treaty they signed assumed that if a state felt it critical to develop nuclear wepons, they could do so by leaving the treaty.

***Red Herring Alert***

You seem to be either misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring LC's point. At no time did he deny that national sovereignty is paramount in international law, as he clearly concedes that Iran can exercise its inalienable national sovereignty at any time by simply pulling out of the NPT. He was only referring to Iran's right to have nukes prior to pulling out of the NPT.







*runs*

[Agathon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Near as I can tell, neither the UN apparatus nor any of the major powers agree to your notion of "national sovereignty".

The rise of international law is one of the defining features of the last century. Of course states will sometimes violate or ignore it when it suits them, just as ordinary criminals do. National sovereignty is the cornerstone of international law.

What you completely fail to take into account is how much worse it was before. Very few people used to even think it was wrong for states to wage aggressive wars against other states, and to annex territory and so on. War was simply a natural part of statecraft. The concept of international law and more importantly, the United Nations charter, is the expression of a transformation in our thinking about war, a transformation born from bitter experience.

We've moved to a world where the common opinion is not that conquered nations must just submit to their conquerors, but that such conquest is illegitimate. Most people believe that, or at least accept the idea. It wasn't always like that.

If you believe that we must move straight from the law of the jungle to a world of law backed by force, then that is simply untrue. Laws that are simply backed by force are tyrannical. In order for law to operate properly, it must be considered legitimate independently of any question of force (this was like, the whole point of the Enlightenment). This intermediate step is itself difficult, since it involves a transformation of previous common sense. But that has now happened, and the difficult task of building enforcement is underway. It's not an easy or short project, and will be conducted in the usual fits and starts of diplomacy. The great powers will be tempted to break the law occasionally, and will do so, but as many incentives as can be brought to bear will be, and they are not insignificant.

Nevertheless, it is necessary, and anyone who thinks differently is simply an idiot. Two world wars ought to have been enough to convince even the stupidest person of the need for a world order based on law, but as usual people lag behind necessity. It's no use saying that alliances will solve the problem, since that is a major part of what caused it in the first place.

Either the law of the jungle eventually dies, or we do. It's quite simple.

[Agathon]

But my original argument isn't about legal niceties. It's the very simple moral argument that the Iranians have promised not to have nukes, and that them having them would therefore be naughty.

You're ignoring the fact that this was never intended as a simple promise, but as a conditional promise. All treaties are conditional promises where it is assumed the participants consider themselves bound only so long as the other parties observe the treaty.

The major parties to the treaty have not, in the eyes of any reasonable person, lived up to the disarmament clauses of the NPT. As GePap pointed out, the United States has itself aided a non NPT state (India).

In cases of simple promises a hypocrite has a case. So, for example, if two people both unconditionally promised not to steal from a third party, whatever anyone else did, and then both stole, then each could justifiably accuse the other of a moral fault and be completely correct (even if they were hypocrites in doing so). The fact that someone is a hypocrite does not entail that the object of their judgement must be in the right.

But in cases of conditional promises, violations by one side release the other from the obligation specified in the promise. The NPT is a case of a conditional promise. A treaty whereby the participants agreed not to allow child pornography would be an example of an unconditional promise. In this latter case the other side allowing child pornography would not be a good reason for you allowing it (and they could justly criticize you if you did).

People have a hard time separating these two cases, IMHO because they have implicitly simple contractarian views of morality (even though this is a misunderstanding of contractarianism IMHO).

[Sirotnikov]

In order for law to operate properly, it must be considered legitimate independently of any question of force (this was like, the whole point of the Enlightenment). This intermediate step is itself difficult, since it involves a transformation of previous common sense. But that has now happened, and the difficult task of building enforcement is underway

I agree with that.

But you must admit that the laws were written and accepted by merely a part of the world's current population representatives.

The situation today is that many people and many states do not accept the legitimacy of law, and merely see it as yet another western dictation that they must suffer or somehow circumvent.

And circumvent they do. And I'm not only talking about small rogue states, but even large states often try to circumvent the laws.

And in the absence of an effective monitoring mechanism - that is not to say an enforcing mechanism, the current situation is merely making international law a laughing stock again and again.

The problem is that no one is serious enough about monitoring or enforcing the international law, because it takes funds and and it may risk lives.

Who is willing to go involve himself in Darfour?

Who is willing to really, objectively observe the implementation of 1701 in Lebanon?

Who is willing to sincerely investigate the murder of Hariri, and then setup a court, without being bullied by rogue states?


I don't think anyone argues that the law is a bad idea.

It is now poorly implemented and not really in a process of transforming the previous common sense. You have half a world that has a totally different common sense, be it Kuran, in some places, or local nationalist interests in others.

And I don't see anyone seriously tackling that problem.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I agree with that.

But you must admit that the laws were written and accepted by merely a part of the world's current population representatives.

The situation today is that many people and many states do not accept the legitimacy of law, and merely see it as yet another western dictation that they must suffer or somehow circumvent.

And circumvent they do. And I'm not only talking about small rogue states, but even large states often try to circumvent the laws.

And in the absence of an effective monitoring mechanism - that is not to say an enforcing mechanism, the current situation is merely making international law a laughing stock again and again.

The problem is that no one is serious enough about monitoring or enforcing the international law, because it takes funds and and it may risk lives.

Who is willing to go involve himself in Darfour?

Who is willing to really, objectively observe the implementation of 1701 in Lebanon?

Who is willing to sincerely investigate the murder of Hariri, and then setup a court, without being bullied by rogue states?


I don't think anyone argues that the law is a bad idea.

It is now poorly implemented and not really in a process of transforming the previous common sense. You have half a world that has a totally different common sense, be it Kuran, in some places, or local nationalist interests in others.

And I don't see anyone seriously tackling that problem.

The world's diplomats are. Just don't expect a quick solution. This will be long and painful (as John Holmes said to his co-star).

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Darius871

You seem to be either misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring LC's point. At no time did he deny that national sovereignty is paramount in international law, as he clearly concedes that Iran can exercise its inalienable national sovereignty at any time by simply pulling out of the NPT. He was only referring to Iran's right to have nukes prior to pulling out of the NPT.

The "right" to have nukes exists if at all because all states are sovereign and can defend themselves. Iran never signed away its "rights." It agreed not to develop nuclear weapons and face retaliation if it chose to do so while remaining in the NPT system.

So to say that Iran does not have a "right" to nukes is incorrect.

[Sirotnikov]

The world's diplomats are. Just don't expect a quick solution. This will be long and painful (as John Holmes said to his co-star).

Somehow I only see the world's diplomats treating int'l law as a nuisanse / pretext for what they want to do anyway.


I think int'l law had more merit in the 40s and 50s, when the war memory was strong and people were willing to sacrifice for that.

Now you need a huge effort to tackle very influentual anti-humanist movements in the 3rd world and the islamic world, and almost nothing is being done education wise. And anything that is, is being criticised.

But you sorta strike me as more of a realist than I thought, so

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Somehow I only see the world's diplomats treating int'l law as a nuisanse / pretext for what they want to do anyway.

Some of them do, but not all of the time. People like John Bolton are the exception.

Diplomats tend to like frameworks of rules, because without them their job is nearly impossible.