GO131:International Relations

Professor Walter HatchColby 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?

Realists say…

Blame it on Hugo(Grotius)

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 LawExplicit agreements (Treaties, conventions, protocols)

UN CharterGeneva ConventionKyoto 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

war

humanrights

diplomacy

environment

War

When is it legal?“just wars” versus wars of aggression

What conduct is legal?No chemical or biological weapons; no land minesNon-combatants should not be targetedExcessive force should be avoidedPOWs

Diplomacy

Diplomatic recognition and immunity

Embassies as sovereign territory

Human RightsNew and controversial area

How do you define it?Infringes on national sovereignty

Broad political rightsHelsinki 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)RwandaBosniaSudan?

U.S. and Human RightsChampion?

Led campaign for rights in Soviet Union, then ChinaHypocrite?

U.S. trained torturers during Cold War; and used torture at Guantanamo and in IraqTargets 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 ratifiedILO conventions on labor rights (1950s)

CTBT

Convention on the Law of the Seas

Land Mine treaty

Global Warming (Kyoto) protocol

Question Two:How is it enforced?

Supranational Enforcement?

Well, no … not really

Option #1International Court of Justice

ICJ = World Court

A branch of the UNmeets in The Hague (Netherlands)

15 judgesserving nine-year termsselected by UN

Hears cases brought by states against other statesExample: border disputes (Honduras v. El Salvador)

Jurisdiction? ShakyU.S. and mining of Nicaragua’s harbor (1986)

Option #2National Courts

U.S. courtsIndividuals can play, too

High jury awards

Greater enforcement power

Belgian courtsHuman 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!

An Example of Shaming:Canada and Harp Seal Pups

So who’s right?

Realists or Liberals?

Realists are Right

The powerful prevailEspecially on security issues

Example: International Criminal CourtNew 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 operationsU.S. demanded that other states enter into bilateral agreements promising not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICCClinton 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