by El Zorro Viejo (aka; Jim)

Andrea Harris over at Twisted Spinster tells us that there is "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INTERNATIONAL LAW."[sic](caps hers) I have to admit that this confuses me a little since her esteemed president, George W. Bush, has spent some time telling us how he is going after "outlaw" regimes like Saddam Hussein's. But, if there is "no such thing as International Law", then, a priori, there can be no such things as "outlaw regimes" because there is no law to be outside of. Which means that George W. Bush has been lying to us again.

This is even more disturbing since, if what she is telling me/us is true, events like the Nurenburg Trials and the more recent trial of Milosevic are actually shams being perpetrated upon the world. In fact, the World Court at the Hague has no foundation or jurisdiction over anything. Dealings between sovereign states, therefore, is strictly a matter of Jungle Law. Treaties are actually unenforcable other than by the exercise of coercive force (military/political/economic) by...who? No international law means that Mr. Bush, for example, could decide that he didn't like a treaty made between, say, Sri Lanka and Bagladesh. He could then threaten the use of force against one or both parties if the treaty was honored. And there would be nothing the two parties to the treaty could do about it. Similarly, Mr. Bush could decide that he didn't like a treaty the U.S. was party to, such as the Geneva Convention which governs the treatment of POWs among other things, and he could order our military to, say, treat prisoners in any way they (the military) wanted to.

Sheesh! I'm glad that enough of the rest of the world does not inhabit that particular space of Ms. Harris's. I'm glad that there is a consensus among nations that there is a standard to which all states should be held, and that, voluntarily, they agree to conduct their affairs accordingly.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. ©El Zorro Viejo 2002-2005