Re: How America Massacred Many Innocent Civilians At Fallujah

From: A_Weisman (a_weisman_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/19/04 

Date: 19 Jun 2004 16:47:20 -0700

a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0406190816.7ab87b63@posting.google.com>...
> derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0406162040.7eaedbf1@posting.google.com>...
> > a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0406151113.4c8ec9eb@posting.google.com>...
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't agree that the legalisms are not pragmatic.
> > >
> > > "International law, whether or not an effective "legal" system, has
> > > important political implications."
> >
> > At times, and in context...but when "push comes to shove"...as they
> > say, I think the clear record of history is that international
> > agreements are not only expendable...but the first casualties.
>
> Nations don't always get along. International law is about a framework
> for cooperation more than a framework for dispute. It does not have a
> very effective dispute resolution mechanism or adjudicatory process.
>
> The thing is that AFTER the pushing and shoving, what happens? And
> before it comes to pushing and shoving, what happens?
>
> International law is about the before and after much more than the
> fighting itself. It provides a framework for preventing disuputes and
> for dealing with the aftermath rather than a good framework for
> dispute resolution.
>
> That is a problem surely.
>
> But you shouldn't underestimate the role of international law in
> preventing disputes or providing alternative resolutions or dealing
> with the aftermath of disputes.
>
> > > "The pragmatism of obeying international norms, working through
> > > multilateral organizations, and obeying treaties and laws whether or
> > > not "binding" shouldn't be underestimated".
> >
> > The world just currently lacks anything approaching an effective
> > enforcement mechanism...except, perhaps to try some slob like
> > Milosevic...(anyone remember him)?
>
> I think your conception of international law is too legalistic. It is
> really about politics not laws. Treaties aren't going to be legally
> enforceable. They are politically enforceable.

I realize I recently criticized people for saying this about our legal
system (dan abrams and those who object to "technicalities" which
usually involve fundamental constitutional rights).

But international law is a different animal. Probably better thought
of as a form of international relations.

Here it doesn't help to be too legalistic.

YES you can raise legal objections and arguments to the compulsion of
international treaties and laws. They may even be legally valid. But
not politically valid. Or smart.

You can argue about whether the Geneva conventions apply to the
Taliban. Or Al Qaeda. Or even Iraqi detainees.

You can argue that the President has powers that make him immune to
the force of law. (I don't agree but it can be argued).

But none of that is helpful. Or wise.

Again, the reason to comply with international law isn't that there is
a mandatory or effective enforcement mechanism. It is about comity
(not comedy). And bottom line it is about self interest. We respect
treaties so that other nations do. We respect treaties and laws so
that there is peace which benefits everyone. We respect treaties and
laws so that we don't incur various costs, including war. Or
sanctions. And to make future agreements possible and effective.

International law is about what is good for the goose being good for
the gander. In both positive and negative ways.

So when you say that international law is meaningless when push comes
to shove and that it lacks a mandatory and effective enforcement
mechanism, you are actually missing the point. Legalism isn't the
compulsion. Pragmatism is. Comity is.

When push comes to shove, international law and treaties have already
failed. Mutlilateral institutions and mechanisms have failed.

But I would argue that is more the fault of one or the other of the
actors/ nations involved. They have failed to avail themselves fully
of what international law has to offer.

In the case of the war against Iraq it was the US who was at fault
just as much if not more than Iraq. We eschewed the process. We used
war as a first resort not a last one.

And we are suffering now for those failures.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Its Official: BushCo Lied To Take Us To War (NDC)
    ... While the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence to bolster their argument, there still existed intelligence that said Iraq was developing WMD's. ... But I have a hard time seeing how you could pin some war crimes on them. ... I have explained this here before - starting a war of agression, like slavery, torture, and genocide, are considered jus cogens offenses, which means that they are principles of international law so fundamental that no nation may ignore them or attempt to contract out of them through treaties. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: OT: Food for thought
    ... are international and domestic laws and treaties. ... Pakistan hit us and run back across the border. ... We are supposed to respect international law and treaties, ... How is having an "ass-kickin' commander in chief and badass troops exclusive ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: OT: Food for thought
    ... are international and domestic laws and treaties. ... I want an ass kickin' Commander in Chief and badass troops ... How is having an "ass-kickin' commander in chief and badass troops exclusive ... of respecting international law and treaties? ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: Versailles treaty
    ... The difference lies in the degree of enforceability. ... treaties like Hague and becoming recognised as international customary law - ... This convention was carried over into international law proper in the 1930s, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)