Now Henry Farrell piles on:
The argument that states will only adhere to international law when it is in their interests to do so is a highly plausible one. But without a generally convincing account of what those interests are, it is not very helpful. We don’t have such a generally convincing account, nor are likely to do anytime soon. Instead, we have a number of competing accounts (state interests flow from the structure of the international system, state interests flow from those of powerful domestic interest groups, state interests flow from the normative structures that they are embedded in etc). Each of these can plausibly be said to capture part of the truth, but none seems like a viable candidate to provide a generally applicable theory any time soon.
Sure. It could be in a state's long term interest to adhere to international law, even when not in the short term interest. But that isn't, as far as I can tell, the argument that Messrs Bertram and Quiggin are making; they are staking a moral claim that a particular vision of international law embodied in the UN charter ought to compel our compliance not because it is advantageous, but because it is right.
If we leave aside that claim, and just address whether it is in the long term strategic interest of the United States to submit itself to binding international law in order to invite reciprocity from other states, then I have to ask "Why?" Does it really actually invite a lot of reciprocity, or is that "reciprocity" enforced by the same means of enforcement we have now without the international law, i.e. the US military? Does it really make people like us a whole lot more? Is the system sustainable--would the US be willing to undertake the role of enforcer in exchange for a measly single vote on the security council, or will the system break down, either because the US withdraws at a bad moment, or because the US decides that it doesn't need such a big military any more? What will wannabe great powers that don't see a long-term strategic interest in international law do if this happens? Is it even remotely politically plausible that America, or any unipolar power, will consent to hamstring itself this way? Can America even credibly commit to international law provided that it is the main enforcer of same?
I realize that I'm not exactly the first genius to ask these questions. But as Henry well knows, I'm generally pretty skeptical of the ease with which these kinds of institutions can be built. The EU has worked, to some extent, but it's taken 50 years, and in the past decade has repeatedly failed to advance integration against the short term interests of powerful national constituencies. And given what the membership of the UN looks like, I'm pretty sceptical that it even should be built. Are we really going to let Zimbabwe, Sudan and Libya vote on our foreign policy?
"Does it really make people like us a whole lot more?"
Um, to judge by the last 6 years? Yes. Yes it does.
Or look at the negative case. By NOT submitting to interntional law, and indeed taking pride in our flouting of it, people sure seem to like us a WHOLE LOT LESS. As Dr. Phil would say (almost a cliche' now), how's that workin' out for us? Not so good.
Is the system sustainable--would the US be willing to undertake the role of enforcer in exchange for a measly single vote on the security council, or will the system break down, either because the US withdraws at a bad moment, or because the US decides that it doesn't need such a big military any more?
The point of "collective security" is that it is COLLECTIVE; the U.S. probably SHOULD be able to reduce the size of its military. In fact, we HAVE; and we're still under no threat of foreign invasion. The United States shouldn't be in "the role of enforcer." And as it stands, our "measly single vote on the Security Council" carries a permanent veto that few other states possess and none can override. If we can't feel secure with those kinds of concessions from the rest of the members, where they make us more equal than almost any of rest of them, then what truly is our committment to the concept? The system won't break down as long as it has credibility with the rest of the members, and part and parcel of that credibility is that its rules and proclamations apply to all members equally. That means the United States too.
What will wannabe great powers that don't see a long-term strategic interest in international law do if this happens?
They are foolish, because they will find themselves ostracized and isolated from the rest of the world; their own people will suffer, and eventually they will be forced back into line. And don't think that just because we're the United States we're immune from the same treatment.
Is it even remotely politically plausible that America, or any unipolar power, will consent to hamstring itself this way?
We're talking about it, aren't we? I'm not even an expert, and it makes sense to me. It CAN work; but rather than trying to MAKE it work, we're now actively working to DEFEAT it. The isocrateses are in charge now and all they know is power, power and more power.
Can America even credibly commit to international law provided that it is the main enforcer of same?
The only reason we're the "main enforcer of same" is that we have appropriated that role to ourselves. We have hamstrung the U.N. at every turn, especially recently, undermining its efforts in the name of our "sovereignty" and "national interest." And the "main enforcer" has had some notable lapses of late; where were we when Darfur was at its peak? We CAN credibly commit to international law; the question is, WILL we?
Is being liked the foremost aim of foreign policy? Are there no higher ideals or standards? It seems to me that American foreign policy, however ineptly implemented, is to first protect the American people and second to advance the ideals of liberty. Some people dislike us for this, but does that mean we should change?
Based on what? The people in the UK, Japan, and Australia had elections in which they reelected governments which supported the United States and the people of Canada, Germany, and France replaced governments which were critical (if not bordering on antagonistic) towards the United States with candidates who campaigned on strengthening ties with us.
I’d say the rumors of the United States becoming more disliked and isolated have been greatly exaggerated.
Jim, do we protect the American people and advance the ideals of liberty by invading, occupying, and/or bombing every country that looks at us crosswise? Do we protect the American people by declaring that our national interest supercedes the national interests of any other country? Do we advance the ideals of liberty by appointing ourselves the arbiters of how other nations' societies should be ordered?
When the Constitution was written, the preamble did not say "We the People of the United States of America do ordain and establish this Constitution for the entire world." It was "to secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES and OUR posterity," not for the Iraqis and THEIR posterity. Do we think it would a good idea for them to do so? Absolutely. Are we going to impose it on them by force? Funny, I don't see that mentioned anywhere in there.
"Advancing the ideals of liberty," at least in terms of military action, should stop at the water's edge. It should not be our role to go around spreading liberty.
I’d say the rumors of the United States becoming more disliked and isolated have been greatly exaggerated.
Posted by Thorley Winston | August 23, 2007 6:29 PM
World opinion of U.S. sinking
Global poll shows wide distrust of United States
Views on U.S. Drop Sharply In Worldwide Opinion Poll
Need I say more.
How about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?em&ex=1188014400&en=45639b242bae8fd2&ei=5087%0A
The US wants the world to adhere to IP rights according to the WTO, but the US doesn't want to itself adhere to WTO rulings. How do you resolve this without being hypocritical?
If we leave aside that claim, and just address whether it is in the long term strategic interest of the United States to submit itself to binding international law in order to invite reciprocity from other states, then I have to ask "Why?"
Why is easy. Given the economic production rates of Asia (particularly China, but look out India) and the increasing (if slowly) cohesiveness of Europe, the United States's role as sole superpower is going to last a remarkably short time.
Whoa, liberalrob! You pose three questions, the answer to all of which is a categorical NO! But, based on your further comments, you relate those questions to the actions our government took in Iraq. That looks like a leap in logic.
Do we advance the ideals of liberty by invading, occupying, or bombing every country that looks at us crosswise? Of course not. But what do we do when a foreign government threatens us, tries to kill our citizens, violates international norms of decency, and is implicated in planning to aid the enemies who killed so many of us? What do we do when our information is uncertain and imperfect? Should we give the benefit of the doubt to known mass murderers?
These are all serious questions. Everybody is unhappy about Iraq, but we must avoid the temptation to generalize from the specifics. I ask these questions:
* Should we attack those countries that pose a serious near term threat to us?
* How certain must we be of the threat?
* Where do we place the benefit of the doubt?
It is only by answering these general questions that we can have a solid specific answer.
Jim Dew:
Also, what consitutes a serious near term threat? This includes (1) the nature of the threat (physical attack? economic, e.g. cutting off oil?) and (2) the degree of harm that could be inflicted by the country in question.
Good points, Lorenzo! Today, these questions are left to the executive branch with little or no guidance from the legislative branch (or the people). It would be better to have the parameters of these questions agreed to in advance. These aren't simple questions. For example, do we say that if only 1000 Americans have a 90% chance of dieing, we do nothing, but if 1001 have a 91% chance, we attack the suspected aggressor? How about 10,000 - 100,000 - a million - ten million? Where do you draw the line? And is a 90% probability too much or not enough? How about 50%? Or 10% Or 1%? I confess to having no answers to these tough questions, but I'm certainly not going to criticize the tough calls when I can't say what the right answer should be.
liberal rob... unfortunatley I stopped reading right about:
"then what truly is our committment to the concept? The system won't break down as long as it has credibility with the rest of the members"
The security of this nation, the security of my family and my posterity is more important than:
1. Your belief that we neeed to be committed to this "concept".
2. Your faulty assumption that the system will not break down
Tell Poland about the credibility of a league of nations. This just a mere 2 decades after fighting the bloodiest war the world has ever seen. WITHIN PEOPLE'S MEMORIES, WITH MEMORIES OF LOVE ONES KILLED AND MAIMED STILL FRESH IN THEIR HEARTS.
Unfortunately civilization will always be at risk of resourting to barbarism. I have no doubt that a strong military protects THIS nation and has protected THIS nation for the last 50+ years.
When evaluating claims about how the US should structure itself we should consider potential threats to this nation and how those threats are increased/decreased based on the proposed changes.
The stakes are too high to make changes on good will. My life is more important than your political philosphy.
unfortunatley I stopped reading right about:
Oh, never stop reading, Sam! You never know what you'll miss! :)
The security of this nation, the security of my family and my posterity is more important than:
I'm sure it is. But what policies will most likely result in that security? Rather than exhausting our own nation's resources trying to single-handedly hold back the sea with our hands, wouldn't it be more prudent to form alliances and pool resources with other nations? Maybe even open dialogues with those nations that threaten us, and try to find ways to resolve our differences peacefully? This isn't rocket science! Once you make the decision to form partnerships, you have to face the fact that your side also must give up something for the success of the whole. And one of the first things you have to do is quit engaging in behavior that ticks off your friends. It all flows logically from one point to the next.
Now, tell me why you think:
1. we don't need to be committed to the concept of international law
2. my assumption (assertion, really) that the system will not be self-sustaining is faulty.
I can tell you isocrates' answer to #1. His point is that we don't need to be committed to international law because our military is the most powerful force on the planet. We can lay waste to any country that stands in our way, so they better just let us do what we want or else. Is that your answer too?
You know why the League of Nations failed. Of the great powers, France and Britain were exhausted from WWI, Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan weren't committed to it, and the United States was completely absent. And as far as Poland goes, no it wasn't saved; but the invasion of Poland was what finally caused Britain and France to enter the war in an effort to restrain the tide of barbarism. So perhaps their sacrifice was not entirely in vain; and if we now decide to go our own way and pursue our own national interest above all else, what happens to Poland if it is suddenly not in our interest to help them? What then of their murdered millions?
Yes, our strong military has protected this nation for 50+ years. Yet it wasn't able to protect us on 9/11 from a small force of fanatics who figured out how to penetrate our security; and even today we envision nightmare scenarios of nuclear-tipped missiles launched from freighters off the East Coast, or suitcase bombs smuggled in through Canada or Mexico, where again our fine military would be powerless to save us. The root causes of what makes people want to blow us up cannot be corrected through military action (in fact, such action will make it WORSE); it will require cooperation and diplomacy, working with our allies rather than against them, trying to understand our enemies and find common ground rather than telling them to talk to the hand and threatening nuclear devastation.
My life is more important than your political philosphy.
Same back at ya, my friend. Just keep thinking about this in terms of 'us' and 'them'. Dehumanize and demonize 'them', denigrate 'them', they aren't 'us', they aren't as important as we are, they don't deserve the same consideration as our own people, they are untermenschen, and right down the slippery slope we go. Right back to that same damned bloody hole. Yes, civilization will always be at risk of resorting to barbarism, and clinging to American exceptionalism is one of the surest ways to do exactly that.
sam points out that the US has been safe since 1945.
Things the US did in 1945 and into the 1950s:
The US founded the United Nations.
The US founded NATO.
The US signed and ratified the UN Charter.
The US created the Bretton Woods agreement (establishing binding rules on us and other countries making international currencies convertible).
The US helped create the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which evolved into the WTO.
The US encouraged European countries to found the ECC, which became the EC, which became the EU.
The US helped prosecute the Nuremberg Trials, establishing some of the foundations of international war-crimes laws.
Wars the US has fought this century with broad coalitions of powerful allies: WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan.
Wars the US has fought alone or with only a couple of (mainly small) allies: Vietnam, Iraq.
Internationalism helps defend the US. Unilateralism threatens the US. Every time the US violates international law, it puts you and your family at risk.
Well, not EVERY time, but often enough.
then I have to ask "Why?"
She keeps asking "why?" People keep answering her. Then she keeps asking "but why?" What is she, three years old?
Does it really actually invite a lot of reciprocity, or is that "reciprocity" enforced by the same means of enforcement we have now without the international law, i.e. the US military?
Yeah, that's right: the only reason why anyone ever does anything nice for the US is because they're afraid of our military. It's not that France refrains from massively violating copyrights on US intellectual property because both countries are members of the Berne Convention and they realize this might expose their companies to similar violations by other countries or to adverse judgments by the WTO. It's that they're scared we'll nuke Paris if they rip our CDs. Yeah.
Look: when people cut a deal with you -- a trade deal, whatever kind of deal -- they do so in the expectation that you will keep your end. Such confidence is only possible with countries that are seen to consistently uphold deals. One can cut separate deals with each individual country and hope that successive countries will look at one's record of keeping one's deals with every single other country; but since the terms one wants with each country are usually very similar, it's more effective and clear to make ONE BIG DEAL with everybody. That is called "international law". The clearest example of it is the WTO, and the US's success in getting other countries to sign multilateral trade agreements that are preconditions to joining the WTO is predicated on the US itself following the terms of its own WTO deal. (There are some grounds for contending that the US's membership in the WTO has hurt American citizens more than it should have, but those grounds are, shall we say, not libertarian grounds.)
Does it really make people like us a whole lot more?
Violating the norms of the international community makes people hate you. Such norms include not invading countries that haven't attacked you. The consequences of violating that international norm can be very striking indeed, as Iraq found out in August of 1990. It is simply mind-boggling that the US would invite the same kind of international response. The opinion polls are very unambiguous on this point, as is the general sensation of living or traveling abroad for Americans today.
And here's a broader concern I have with people like McArdle who, through a combination of what seems to have been a poor education in history and an affection for picturing herself as a naif, insists on considering every question from first principles. This is a very American thing to do. In some situations it can bear great results. It allows you to say, "Hey, why do things this way just because we always have? Let's try this other way." In other situations, however, it amounts to reneging on a contract. We ratified the UN Charter -- in fact, we basically wrote it. We got a lot of other countries to ratify it, too. Ditto with the WTO. For us to now say, "Actually, how about we just forget about this piece of paper -- don't know what those old guys were thinking -- and let's start from scratch, from the principle that..." -- well, just think about the reputation that such a move earns your country. Think about the reputation YOU would get, if you tried that with a contract you'd signed to do a job.
That's exactly the right question. Cui bono?. Certainly not the United States. We already have tremendous freedom to pursue our long range strategic objectives. Some have objected that American Presidents, like the current one, sometimes make mistakes. But that is beside the point.
The question is who can we trust to look after our own interests. My own belief is that, in general, an American President (and Congress) is likely a better guradian of our interests than a body that would include Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran. There are far to many countries in the world that have corrupt, dictatorial regimes that see their own interests as diametrically opposed to those if the United States. If would be the hight of folly to surrender our sovereignty to such people.
That said, I myself agree with some others here that the Bush administration was too brazen and too contemptuous of international alliances. On the one hand, we ought to preserve our own sovereignty and freedom of action, on the other we ought to be aware of the importance of diplomatic ties and trade relations with others.
Wow, a miracle.
What are our "long range strategic objectives?" How would abiding by international law and working within the framework of the United Nations conflict with those objectives? In what ways would the United States NOT benefit from submitting to international law?
Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Iran do not have vetoes in the Security Council. No one surrenders their sovereignty to anyone; the domestic, internal operations of member nations are not the province of international law. What member nations DO surrender is the absolute right to engage in military action anywhere, anytime, without at least consulting the international body. If you call that "surrendering sovereignty" then I'd say our definitions of sovereignty are not the same.
I would be remiss as a liberal if I didn't point out that we need to talk about DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, Rove, Cheney, and Bush while we're talking about "corrupt, dictatorial regimes."