240 likes | 446 Views
GO131: International Relations Professor Walter Hatch Colby College International Law. Two Questions. What is international law? Does such a thing really exist? How is international law enforced? Isn’t it really just a matter of power politics?. Question One: What IS International Law?.
E N D
GO131: International Relations Professor Walter Hatch Colby College International Law
Two Questions • What is international law? • Does such a thing really exist? • How is international law enforced? • Isn’t it really just a matter of power politics?
Defining International Law • Traditional: the rules determining the conduct of states in their dealings with one other • Increasingly, though, individuals and corporations – not just states – viewed as subjects of international law • Newer: the body of rules and principles, formal and informal, operating at the international rather than national level
Sources of International Law • Explicit agreements (Treaties, conventions, protocols) • UN Charter • Geneva Convention • Kyoto Protocol • Customary Law (like “common law”) • Widespread, representative and consistent practice of states • Norms (general principles of morality and justice) • UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Areas of International Law diplomacy war environment human rights
War • When is it legal? • “just wars” versus wars of aggression • What conduct is legal? • No chemical or biological weapons; no land mines • Non-combatants should not be targeted • Excessive force should be avoided • POWs
Diplomacy • Diplomatic recognition and immunity • Embassies as sovereign territory
Human Rights • New and controversial area • How do you define it? • Infringes on national sovereignty • Broad political rights • Helsinki Accords (1970s) • U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) • U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) • U.N. Convention Against Torture (1984) • Rights of threatened groups • U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965) • U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women/CEDAW (1979) • U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) • Genocide (1948 convention) • Rwanda • Bosnia • Sudan?
U.S. and Human Rights • Champion? • Led campaign for rights in Soviet Union, then China • Hypocrite? • U.S. trained torturers during Cold War; and used torture at Guantanamo and in Iraq • Targets counter that U.S. itself has largest number of prisoners; a vast population of poor and homeless; persistent racism • U.S. hasn’t ratified many human rights conventions • Economic, social and cultural rights • Elimination of discrimination against women • Rights of child
Superpower Exceptionalism • Not just on human rights conventions • U.S. also has not ratified • ILO conventions on labor rights (1950s) • CTBT • Convention on the Law of the Seas • Land Mine treaty • Global Warming (Kyoto) protocol
Supranational Enforcement? Well, no … not really
ICJ = World Court • A branch of the UN • meets in The Hague (Netherlands) • 15 judges • serving nine-year terms • selected by UN • Hears cases brought by states against other states • Example: border disputes (Honduras v. El Salvador) • Jurisdiction? Shaky • U.S. and mining of Nicaragua’s harbor (1986)
Option #2National Courts • U.S. courts • Individuals can play, too • High jury awards • Greater enforcement power • Belgian courts • Human rights cases (Geneva conventions) • Spanish courts (Judge Baltasar Garzón) • The Pinochet case
Option #3The Court of Public Opinion • This is also called “shaming” • NGOs • International media • And it often works!
So who’s right? Realists or Liberals?
Realists are Right • The powerful prevail • Especially on security issues • Example: International Criminal Court • New permanent court (2003) in The Hague • 18 judges • Will replace ad hoc war crimes tribunals, hearing cases brought against individuals for crimes against humanity • U.S. won’t participate
U.S. and the ICC • U.S. secured U.N. resolution exempting U.S. nationals from ICC jurisdiction for crimes committed during UN operations • U.S. demanded that other states enter into bilateral agreements promising not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC • Clinton signed treaty on 12/31/2000; Bush took unusual step of “unsigning” on 3/6/2002
Then again …maybe the Liberals are right • To back out of the ICC, GWB actually followed another international treaty • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires signatories to “refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose” of a treaty. • Bush’s “unsigning” (by announcing U.S. intent not to ratify) cleared the U.S. from the obligations of the Vienna Convention