"What we have instead is a theater of accountability that functions as cover for inaction." You nailed it. The UN and the International Criminal Court are two prime examples. If you depend on any international organization to protect your ass, you've already surrendered. Game over. Thanks for a great article.
The law is not an ass. As the piece says, there is no law without broad buy in and enforcement mechanisms. In the United tates (though there are miscarriages of justice obviously) the law works very well to protect property and other rights. This is the major difference between a first world country and a third world dirt hole.
Yes, the law works reasonably well in the US. But guilty people are exonerated, innocent people are convicted, citizens and green-card possessors are arrested without warrants and detained and deported, and in civil cases, people win who should lose, and people lose who should win. Juries award ridiculously high or ridiculously low verdicts in personal injury cases. The affluent have better access to lawyers and courts. Equal treatment before the law is a goal which is achieved some of the time.
I've been a lawyer in the US since 1978, and I can tell you that, while most of the time the legal system works, it frequently does not.
Anatole France, winner of the 1921 Nobel Prize in Literature, famously wrote: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
I just want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart for putting things more eloquently that I could ever muster. So grateful to read your article today.
Or as a someone put it in the context of the Venezuelan regime: "Si el Derecho internacional no puede evitar que yo sea torturado en una celda del Helicoide, pero sí protege a Maduro para que pueda seguir torturándome en el Helicoide, el Derecho internacional no sólo no me sirve de nada, sino que me está jodiendo."
Translation: "If international law cannot prevent me from being tortured in a cell in El Helicoide, but it does protect Maduro so he can keep torturing me in El Helicoide, then international law not only does nothing for me, but it is actually f..king me over."
"The Kellogg–Briand Pact–officially the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy" from 1928, as an example, was meant to outlaw war by national governments. Germany signed it but obviously that had NO effect on the Third Reich. Regardless of treaties, concordances, or agreements war WILL be with us always. The enemies of peace like Iran expect the rest of us to abide by these meaningless scraps of paper but since they firmly believe that Allah rules then they're free to do as they bloody well please all the while claiming to do God's will regardless.
There are a large number of "legal experts" who know all this. Yet they are virtually absent from self-acclaimed "free", "independent" television and the self-acclaimed "free" "independent" press.
There, 90% of the coverage consists of "expert" professors from more or less "left(-"leaning" or -"radical") universities spouting their self-righteous pronouncements, "confirming" what all those "left-wing ("free") journalists" already (want to)"know" and want to hear and spread. They avoid "inquisitive" questions that should arise in every thinking person. They don't want to be or are not able to offer any realistic alternative to "international law" because that would destroy their "career".
I agree with what you wrote, but I’ll just add that I don’t think it’s only enforcement that’s lacking. International law is also deeply hypocritical and unreasonable. For example, while all countries have agreed via the UN Charter to refrain from using force in international relations, it still places no limit on the weapons they can legally acquire. Pre-emptive self-defense is only legal when an attack is imminent, not before, even if the feared attack may be nuclear and lead to annihilation. Those demanding others adhere to that rule would likely abandon it in a moment if they felt their own personal survival was threatened.
There is NO SUCH THING as "International Law". It does not exist. Countries have their own laws, some more or less severe than others. But there is no "law" that is recognized equally around the world by all countries, each country having the same penalties for their violation.
Sure, there is the so-called "International Criminal Court", or ICC, but they do not have their own police force. They cannot just show up and arrest someone. I'm not really sure how it DOES work, but when the ICC "charges" or "indicts" someone, nobody can just show up in that person's country and arrest them.
Sort of like the United Nations' "sanctions" and "condemnations". The UN is not a law-making or a law-enforcement organization. It's "sanctions" and "condemnations" have no legal consequence to those countries that are issued them.
"I’m seeing a disgraceful reaction by the U.N. to what’s going on. Let’s keep in mind that since mass protests began at the end of December, the U.N. was mostly silent, mostly indifferent to protesters being gunned down to the tune of tens of thousands in just two days. There were muted responses and they basically did nothing to stop massacre of protesters.
This same body this week has sprung into action, immediately condemning the U.S. and Israel for answering the call of the millions of Iranian protesters who said: “Save us. Do anything you can to stop the mass murder.” And when the military action finally came, the U.N., which did nothing to help them, is condemning the help that the Iranians asked for. Never in the history of the U.N. have we seen such a betrayal and contempt shown for the U.N.’s own founding values."
I’m saddened by your loss and the horrible experience of all the people of Israel. The UN is a Despicable Institution of Human shame and needs to be ABOLISHED- NOW 💥🤮💩💥💥💥👎🏼😾
International Law will always be only as good as the worst nation. It has done nothing to protect anyone and has devolved into a racket to destroy Israel while protecting the greatest monsters on earth.
The Laws are a consequence of some consensus from those who want and desire leadership and direction. Enforcement, implementation, regulation and accomplishment also requires a consensus and, maybe, the BIG STICK. Those with a big stick, power, rule…. Consensus is impotent!
The distinction between national and international laws is not quite so bright. National laws are sometimes ignored and enforced unevenly. The same with international laws only a bit more so. But that is not to say they are never enforced or completely worthless. And behavior already bad might be even worse without them. Rather than give up, it makes more sense to get every country to acknowledge them and thereafter to bolster the mechanisms for enforcement.
No. International Law is not enforced at all. Therefore it does not exist. If it existed and was enforced, half the governments int he world would be in prison and guess what. Israel would not be one of them.
International Laws are only meaningful to the nations willing to abide by them. Rogue states and those following their own ideological/religious, etc. mandates contrary to these 'laws' render them toothless and moot.
"What we have instead is a theater of accountability that functions as cover for inaction." You nailed it. The UN and the International Criminal Court are two prime examples. If you depend on any international organization to protect your ass, you've already surrendered. Game over. Thanks for a great article.
It is to be remembered that:
1) Hitler came to power legally, and
2) Jewish immigration to British controlled Palestine in much of 1945-7 was illegal.
As Dickens wrote in Oliver Twist in the 19th century, “The law is an ass.”
I would say, in agreement with Ido Singer, that “International law is ass.”
The law is not an ass. As the piece says, there is no law without broad buy in and enforcement mechanisms. In the United tates (though there are miscarriages of justice obviously) the law works very well to protect property and other rights. This is the major difference between a first world country and a third world dirt hole.
Yes, the law works reasonably well in the US. But guilty people are exonerated, innocent people are convicted, citizens and green-card possessors are arrested without warrants and detained and deported, and in civil cases, people win who should lose, and people lose who should win. Juries award ridiculously high or ridiculously low verdicts in personal injury cases. The affluent have better access to lawyers and courts. Equal treatment before the law is a goal which is achieved some of the time.
I've been a lawyer in the US since 1978, and I can tell you that, while most of the time the legal system works, it frequently does not.
Anatole France, winner of the 1921 Nobel Prize in Literature, famously wrote: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
I just want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart for putting things more eloquently that I could ever muster. So grateful to read your article today.
Or as a someone put it in the context of the Venezuelan regime: "Si el Derecho internacional no puede evitar que yo sea torturado en una celda del Helicoide, pero sí protege a Maduro para que pueda seguir torturándome en el Helicoide, el Derecho internacional no sólo no me sirve de nada, sino que me está jodiendo."
Translation: "If international law cannot prevent me from being tortured in a cell in El Helicoide, but it does protect Maduro so he can keep torturing me in El Helicoide, then international law not only does nothing for me, but it is actually f..king me over."
"The Kellogg–Briand Pact–officially the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy" from 1928, as an example, was meant to outlaw war by national governments. Germany signed it but obviously that had NO effect on the Third Reich. Regardless of treaties, concordances, or agreements war WILL be with us always. The enemies of peace like Iran expect the rest of us to abide by these meaningless scraps of paper but since they firmly believe that Allah rules then they're free to do as they bloody well please all the while claiming to do God's will regardless.
There are a large number of "legal experts" who know all this. Yet they are virtually absent from self-acclaimed "free", "independent" television and the self-acclaimed "free" "independent" press.
There, 90% of the coverage consists of "expert" professors from more or less "left(-"leaning" or -"radical") universities spouting their self-righteous pronouncements, "confirming" what all those "left-wing ("free") journalists" already (want to)"know" and want to hear and spread. They avoid "inquisitive" questions that should arise in every thinking person. They don't want to be or are not able to offer any realistic alternative to "international law" because that would destroy their "career".
I agree with what you wrote, but I’ll just add that I don’t think it’s only enforcement that’s lacking. International law is also deeply hypocritical and unreasonable. For example, while all countries have agreed via the UN Charter to refrain from using force in international relations, it still places no limit on the weapons they can legally acquire. Pre-emptive self-defense is only legal when an attack is imminent, not before, even if the feared attack may be nuclear and lead to annihilation. Those demanding others adhere to that rule would likely abandon it in a moment if they felt their own personal survival was threatened.
There is NO SUCH THING as "International Law". It does not exist. Countries have their own laws, some more or less severe than others. But there is no "law" that is recognized equally around the world by all countries, each country having the same penalties for their violation.
Sure, there is the so-called "International Criminal Court", or ICC, but they do not have their own police force. They cannot just show up and arrest someone. I'm not really sure how it DOES work, but when the ICC "charges" or "indicts" someone, nobody can just show up in that person's country and arrest them.
Sort of like the United Nations' "sanctions" and "condemnations". The UN is not a law-making or a law-enforcement organization. It's "sanctions" and "condemnations" have no legal consequence to those countries that are issued them.
Hillel Neuer - UN Watch:
"I’m seeing a disgraceful reaction by the U.N. to what’s going on. Let’s keep in mind that since mass protests began at the end of December, the U.N. was mostly silent, mostly indifferent to protesters being gunned down to the tune of tens of thousands in just two days. There were muted responses and they basically did nothing to stop massacre of protesters.
This same body this week has sprung into action, immediately condemning the U.S. and Israel for answering the call of the millions of Iranian protesters who said: “Save us. Do anything you can to stop the mass murder.” And when the military action finally came, the U.N., which did nothing to help them, is condemning the help that the Iranians asked for. Never in the history of the U.N. have we seen such a betrayal and contempt shown for the U.N.’s own founding values."
Excellent and eloquent.
I’m saddened by your loss and the horrible experience of all the people of Israel. The UN is a Despicable Institution of Human shame and needs to be ABOLISHED- NOW 💥🤮💩💥💥💥👎🏼😾
International Law will always be only as good as the worst nation. It has done nothing to protect anyone and has devolved into a racket to destroy Israel while protecting the greatest monsters on earth.
International law is not meaningless. Its value has been diminished by those who have been appointed to uphold it: the UN, the ICJ and ICC.
On the Mill Principle of reciprocity in international law, the concept of opinio juris and the failure of the UN:
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/is-the-strike-on-iran-illegal
On the ICJ debasing its own jurisprudence:
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/icj-abandons-precedent-reason-and?r=izczy
On the double standards of the ICC
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/why-no-warrant-for-the-pm-of-palestine?r=izczy
Arab states that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute:
Jordan
Comoros
Djibouti
Tunisia
Arab states that have signed but not ratified the Statute:
Bahrain
Lebanon
Sudan
Oman
The Laws are a consequence of some consensus from those who want and desire leadership and direction. Enforcement, implementation, regulation and accomplishment also requires a consensus and, maybe, the BIG STICK. Those with a big stick, power, rule…. Consensus is impotent!
The distinction between national and international laws is not quite so bright. National laws are sometimes ignored and enforced unevenly. The same with international laws only a bit more so. But that is not to say they are never enforced or completely worthless. And behavior already bad might be even worse without them. Rather than give up, it makes more sense to get every country to acknowledge them and thereafter to bolster the mechanisms for enforcement.
No. International Law is not enforced at all. Therefore it does not exist. If it existed and was enforced, half the governments int he world would be in prison and guess what. Israel would not be one of them.
International Laws are only meaningful to the nations willing to abide by them. Rogue states and those following their own ideological/religious, etc. mandates contrary to these 'laws' render them toothless and moot.
Some states follow some international laws and not others. It’s not all or nothing.
True, but my article argues something else completely. I argue that international law, as a concept, is so flawed it has no merit. None whatsoever.
Exactly