International Law and International Organizations: The Truth.
How many times this week have you heard someone talk about ‘International Law’ in a paper or on a news program? Several times probably. And you’d probably think nothing much of it, believing that there is actually International Law, that it exists somewhere in written form, and it is something every nation must obey.
Thought it may be strange to hear it, there is no such thing as ‘International Law’, it is a myth, a catch-phrase and a modern-era by-word for politically correct bureaucrats. It is quite often used by people who have no sense of politics or International Relations. It has been used in Britain frequently (very recently) by the Bishop of York. A man who has no place talking of politics.
International Law is often written about in the context of Globalization, and indeed in this sense it is a replacement phrase for UN Law and EU Law. Indeed these two forms of Law are what constitutes, technically speaking, the thing we call ‘International Law’. Thus there is no such thing as ‘International Law’.
However, since there is both UN and EU Law, which in the sense of Globalization, constitutes ‘International Law’, why do people constantly refer to nations breaking these Laws, yet nothing is ever done about it. There are no International Law Courts or anything of the sort. The UN is also unable to interfere in the Sovereignty of a fellow nation, so any argument about breaking UN Law is null and void, even before they were penned. EU Law is very much the same, except it is harder to understand, much more long winded, and endlessly useless and un-enforceable. Sovereignty of EU Nations is such a contentious issue that the EU has no hope at all of brining their laws to bear on any member state that refuses to be dictated to under them.
In a sense this is to look at the world from a Realist point of view, even from an Hobbesian point of view, if you will. An Idealist view suggests International Law does exist, yet Idealists cannot provide evidence of these Laws ever having been enforced. Nations have used these mysterious Laws to their advantage and others have ignored them to their detriment. The UN is the body that enforces any semblance or world wide Law, but without nations like the USA the UN has no hope of making such Laws stick or come to bear on the nation in question. The Security Council cannot agree on anything in the first place (simple because the Council’s permanent members amount to a corrupt neo-Stalinist state, Russia, and a Communist state, China), thus what hope does the UN Assembly (with members like North Korea, Iran, Bolivia and Syria) have of applying Laws in any way, shape or form?
Since the beginning of time national entities have never agreed with each. Nations and States have never seen eye to eye unless it is beneficial for them to do so, and even then it is only a handful of states and a tiny minority of the International Community. When the League of Nations first arrived on the scene it was ignored, for the most part, by the Great Powers, and instead they reverted to Direct Diplomacy, dealing straight with each other through organizations like the Conference of Ambassadors. This allowed the main world players to agree on things far quicker than an arbiter would allow.
The simple fact of the matter is that International Co-Operation does not work, the UN may seem like a good idea, and indeed we are led to believe, by some, that it is a good thing. But the Assembly and Security Council have not agreed on a single issue since 1950, when they agreed to help South Korea during the Korean War. Even then the USA shouldered 95% of the burden for the three years of the war, Britain mostly taking up the other 5%. The UN has consistently ignored issues that matter, Global Warming was ignored (instead nations took independent initiatives and came up with various plans of their own) Darfur has and was ignored, Rwanda was ignored, for the most part, Somalia was left up to the USA and Pakistan in 1992-1993, Afghanistan was ignored, as was and is Iraq. The UN could have alleviated these problems with one click and swish of a pen, but instead Kofi Annan only wanted to use his position to get his son diplomatic discount on cars and get his company backroom deals on jobs in Iraq between 1993 and 2001. This is not right.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that the UN and EU are not the be alls and end alls of International Relations, they do not even come close. Both are largely ineffectual, completely corrupt and slow to react. They are both over 30 years old and have not done that much to help the world as whole. Thus how can these two organizations hope to provide any authority on world-wide Law. It is those who cannot see the problems and corruption behind the EU and UN that refer to International Law, possibly hoping that the organizations will do something, but not realising they can’t as this kind of Law does not and has not existed.
The world is a dangerous, unpredictable place. A body that represents more bad than good, i.e. the UN, cannot hope to assert its legitimacy ever. As it has always been, the ‘Great Powers’ of the day hold all the cards, and the sooner people realise this, the better. I only hope I can help you see this.
-Cuchulain-
Thought it may be strange to hear it, there is no such thing as ‘International Law’, it is a myth, a catch-phrase and a modern-era by-word for politically correct bureaucrats. It is quite often used by people who have no sense of politics or International Relations. It has been used in Britain frequently (very recently) by the Bishop of York. A man who has no place talking of politics.
International Law is often written about in the context of Globalization, and indeed in this sense it is a replacement phrase for UN Law and EU Law. Indeed these two forms of Law are what constitutes, technically speaking, the thing we call ‘International Law’. Thus there is no such thing as ‘International Law’.
However, since there is both UN and EU Law, which in the sense of Globalization, constitutes ‘International Law’, why do people constantly refer to nations breaking these Laws, yet nothing is ever done about it. There are no International Law Courts or anything of the sort. The UN is also unable to interfere in the Sovereignty of a fellow nation, so any argument about breaking UN Law is null and void, even before they were penned. EU Law is very much the same, except it is harder to understand, much more long winded, and endlessly useless and un-enforceable. Sovereignty of EU Nations is such a contentious issue that the EU has no hope at all of brining their laws to bear on any member state that refuses to be dictated to under them.
In a sense this is to look at the world from a Realist point of view, even from an Hobbesian point of view, if you will. An Idealist view suggests International Law does exist, yet Idealists cannot provide evidence of these Laws ever having been enforced. Nations have used these mysterious Laws to their advantage and others have ignored them to their detriment. The UN is the body that enforces any semblance or world wide Law, but without nations like the USA the UN has no hope of making such Laws stick or come to bear on the nation in question. The Security Council cannot agree on anything in the first place (simple because the Council’s permanent members amount to a corrupt neo-Stalinist state, Russia, and a Communist state, China), thus what hope does the UN Assembly (with members like North Korea, Iran, Bolivia and Syria) have of applying Laws in any way, shape or form?
Since the beginning of time national entities have never agreed with each. Nations and States have never seen eye to eye unless it is beneficial for them to do so, and even then it is only a handful of states and a tiny minority of the International Community. When the League of Nations first arrived on the scene it was ignored, for the most part, by the Great Powers, and instead they reverted to Direct Diplomacy, dealing straight with each other through organizations like the Conference of Ambassadors. This allowed the main world players to agree on things far quicker than an arbiter would allow.
The simple fact of the matter is that International Co-Operation does not work, the UN may seem like a good idea, and indeed we are led to believe, by some, that it is a good thing. But the Assembly and Security Council have not agreed on a single issue since 1950, when they agreed to help South Korea during the Korean War. Even then the USA shouldered 95% of the burden for the three years of the war, Britain mostly taking up the other 5%. The UN has consistently ignored issues that matter, Global Warming was ignored (instead nations took independent initiatives and came up with various plans of their own) Darfur has and was ignored, Rwanda was ignored, for the most part, Somalia was left up to the USA and Pakistan in 1992-1993, Afghanistan was ignored, as was and is Iraq. The UN could have alleviated these problems with one click and swish of a pen, but instead Kofi Annan only wanted to use his position to get his son diplomatic discount on cars and get his company backroom deals on jobs in Iraq between 1993 and 2001. This is not right.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that the UN and EU are not the be alls and end alls of International Relations, they do not even come close. Both are largely ineffectual, completely corrupt and slow to react. They are both over 30 years old and have not done that much to help the world as whole. Thus how can these two organizations hope to provide any authority on world-wide Law. It is those who cannot see the problems and corruption behind the EU and UN that refer to International Law, possibly hoping that the organizations will do something, but not realising they can’t as this kind of Law does not and has not existed.
The world is a dangerous, unpredictable place. A body that represents more bad than good, i.e. the UN, cannot hope to assert its legitimacy ever. As it has always been, the ‘Great Powers’ of the day hold all the cards, and the sooner people realise this, the better. I only hope I can help you see this.
-Cuchulain-
posted by Cuchulain at
10:55
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home