Human nature
consists of three basic components. These are to
live, to
propagate and to dominate. If Humanity
was left without any
other parameters,
this natural state of existence would govern its
behavior. Fortunately, there are parameters that
exist. These
parameters are
law. The topic of this paper addresses
the type of law
that operates in
creating potential boundaries for the behavior of
states. This law is called the Law of Nations or
international law.
Patrick Moynihan,
a senator from New York, has written a book on this
subject called On
the Law of Nations. His book argues that
states need
international law
to monitor their actions and to maintain order.
He
also notes the
frequent departures states do from
international law.
This essay will
reflect his plea to return to the norms that
international law
provides; it will also discuss and identify the moral
dilemmas that are
present with international law and its relationship
with states.
The term "laisser aller" or
"letting go" is used by Friedrich
Nietzsche to
describe this state of nature, in which man resides
absently of
law. His use of the term represents the
struggle morality
wages against
nature and reason. He equates morality
in any form, with
"tyranny and
unreason." Nietzsche proposes that man's natural existence
be, in essence,
nihilistic. Logically, the political
entity known as
the state,
created by man will inherit these traits.
Thus, the
conclusion is
that the creation and institution of international law are
in direct
violation to nature.
However, international law exists and states
"generally" submit
themselves to
it. . Since most of this law is derived
from codified
norms of states,
the term submission can be used. There is a disservice
committed to
humanity when the law is broken, not just to those who are
weaker in the
global community but to the law itself.
A violent raping
of the law is
committed when it is taken in an a la carte form. The
constant shifting
back and forth from international law to nature
creates an
incoherent system and a basis for calling the reversion to
the natural
state, evil. In this setting
"illegal" unilateral action is
immoral. Conversely, the adherence to the law is
equally immoral. This
conclusion is
drawn from the virtue of integrity.
Either have a
commitment to
comply with morality or completely abstain from a
hypocritical form
of servicing the law with words and no conformity.
Consistency, is
an extremely important factor of a system of law.
Moynihan argues that the United State has begun
to traverse a
path leading away
from its adherence to international law.
"There is
clear evidence
that the United States is moving away from its long
established
concern for and advocacy of international legal norms of
state
behavior." The implication of the
United States' departure is
extremely
troubling. The decline of universalism
in world politics can
be seen through
the example of the United States.
Moynihan has no
trouble in
finding examples in recent history to support
his argument.
During the Bush Administration two examples are
cited of
unilateral action
condoned by the United States, which are violations of
international
law. The first is the precedent allowing
the Federal
Bureau of
Investigation apprehend fugitives of United States law
anywhere around
the world. This violates the principles
of sovereignty
and
jurisdiction. The second example is the
United States' raid on the
home of the
Nicaraguan embassador in Panama. This
clearly violates the
idea of
extraterritorality. These actions are
interpreted to be in
violation to the
very law that the United States constitution promises
to up hold. Because of these actions and many others that
are
frequently taking
place all around the globe, an underlying disregard
for law in the
international community exists. One
could conclude that
there is no real
international law but international suggestion.
The
moral dilemma does not exist in an isolated location, such
as the United
States. This is a wide spread enigma
that confronts
political
thinkers of today. The existence of an
operational universal
system in a
predominated arena of nationalism is nearly impossible. The
two systems have
been shifting since the Treaty of Westphalia, according
to Hans
Morganthau. He argues that nations are
now "the
standard-bearers
of ethical systems, each of them of national origin and
each of them
claiming and aspiring to provide a supranational framework
moral standards .
. . " This powerful argument
proposes that the
framework has
changed. There has been a shift from
that common ground
to something
self-interested. The reason for the shift
is nationalism.
Each state maintains that they have the moral
system which should be
universally
accepted; thus, only satisfying that part of the
international law
that is right for them. This gives us
international
law a la carte
and consequently, not a viable system at all.
International law exists as hybrid system of
law.
Unfortunately,
consistency is a problem. If this was the case in law
on a domestic
level there are concessions for enforcement.
The
international
community has no such institution nor stipulation for
uniform
compliance to its law. This creates a
dilemma, how can a
grouping of
people whose nature is self-interested behave morally
without
encouragement from a compulsory mechanism?
This
essay reflects the ideas argued by Patrick Moynihan in the
book, On the Law
of Nations. Furthermore, it argues the
notion of
morality in the
international community, that either there is complete
surrender to its
principles or total abstinence in participation.
Perhaps one day a
solution will arise to successfully solve the dilemmas
the world faces
in obtaining a world of order. A world
where the law is
not based on mere
custom but a legislature empowered to create laws that
are binding to
all states. Having a system that allows
for enforcement
and
interpretation of the law will benefit the now chaotic world that
hangs on the
thread of sanity over the abyss of annihilation
No comments:
Post a Comment