The legitimacy of international law
I’m a little surprised at James’s full-throated defense of international law. In response to my suggestion that Americans would disapprove of American nationals being seized while traveling abroad, James writes that the Euros should back down because
the cost of ’securing justice’ would be so heavy as to bankrupt, probably forever, the entire fund of institutional authority available to international law, an outcome to be cherished and championed by despots, cranks, and scumbags from Harare to Vladivostok.
I’ve always felt somewhat ambivalent about international law, specifically, the amorphous concept of international law as it applies to nonsignatory states. Obviously, if two or more nations have a treaty and one of those nations breaks the rules of said treaty, that nation needs to be held accountable.
But I find the International Criminal Court–to say nothing of the German law claiming “universal jurisdiction” over human rights cases–to be something of a head-scratcher. How dare an organization we are not party to, or a nation we call an ally, claim to have jurisdiction over our citizens when the offending action didn’t take place on their soil or involve any of their people? Where do they get off?
Which brings me to a deeper question: Do we need bodies like the ICC or the ICJ at all? I’ve never heard a persuasive argument as to why we need an established, permanent body is better than a series of ad hoc trials like Nuremberg or the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. If you create a bureaucracy like the ICC or ICJ, you’re going to need to keep it busy. And focusing on American functionaries who signed off on the roughing up of a terrorist or two in a time of national crisis seems like a waste of time when millions are dead and more are dying in real hotspots, like Darfur.
This, of course, comes back to my overarching point that the Europeans are threatening to arrest American officials for no more significant reason than political grandstanding. I dare* a European magistrate to arrest a high level American official, mostly because I’d like to see the European conception of international law itself exposed to more scrutiny. Try and run a court like this with America in full opposition. See how long it lasts and how effective it is.
*I’ll even double dog dare these feckless functionaries.