Wednesday, November 26, 2008

The European Approach To International Law

I have always said that international law is such a misnomer, if there ever was one. No one follows it unless it advances their own interests.

Here is an article from the WSJ that supports what I have believed all along.

Many of President-elect Barack Obama's supporters hope he will scrap the Bush administration's skeptical attitude toward international law and take a more European approach. This is presumably to bring us in line with what these supporters regard as more enlightened practices abroad.

In fact, Europe's commitment to international law is largely rhetorical. Like the Bush administration, Europeans obey international law when it advances their interests and discard it when it does not.

Europeans are some of the nicest people on a personal level, but can also be very hypocritical on issues of importance.


Anonymous said...

My confusion comes from the fact that international legal agreements are supposed to be part of the diplomatic process, such as extradition and so forth. The “World Court” is no more than an effort to create a one-world government. I’m not buying into that concept; a nation that gives up its sovereignty in bits and pieces is no longer sovereign. But then, I also thought the Euro was a bad idea—for the same reasons.

Z said...

My husband's from Germany..don't get HIM started on 'international law'...they're overruling German laws in the's maddening and stupid. There will be absolutely no sovereignty soon....

we won't have any, either, of course, with Mr. Barack "one world order" Obama at the helm.
I was living in France when the EURO was implemented and hated the idea from the start (plus, I'd finally figured out the French Franc and the Deutschmark!!DRAT!)...Mr and Mrs. Z used to argue about the EU, I was totally against Mr. Z is, too. Oh. I see Mustang also mentioned the ONE WORLD ORDER thing. OH, and his dislike for the Euro!! I swear, with him around, I don't know why I THINK!! WHO NEEDS MY BRAIN, TOO????..We think we were separated at birth!

But, I came today to wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving, LA....all the best...........

LASunsett said...

//The “World Court” is no more than an effort to create a one-world government.//

And one that allows the participation of corrupt regimes in setting precedents for nations that follow the rule of law in their own countries. The same is true for the UN, how does Libya have a seat on the Human Rights Council?

LASunsett said...

//My husband's from Germany..don't get HIM started on 'international law'...they're overruling German laws in the's maddening and stupid. There will be absolutely no sovereignty soon....//

Very surprising, considering the Germany I lived in was very much proud of their nationalist spirit. They rose from the dust of WWII and built a vibrant economy and society. It's true they had help, but there was a time they didn't need help, they went on their own, and the German Mark was the backbone of the European economy.

PS: Happy Thanksgiving, to you and Mr. Z, too. Thanks for coming here and sharing your wisdoms.

Always On Watch said...

Even when I was back in college (1968-1972), some of my professors were strong advocates of U.S. adherence to international law, going well beyond any diplomatic agreements. These professors were strong supporters of the concept of the World Court and actually advanced the idea that international law should supercede our own rule of law.

Not many of us students back then bought into these professors' ideas.

A lot of time has passed since those days -- and a lot more teaching by leftist professors. The result? Most young people today are Kool-aid drinkers when it comes to international law.

L'Amerloque said...

Hi LAS !

Amerloque's feeling on this issue is that it's somewhat difficult to lump all Europeans into the same category.

Perhaps there should be a distinction made between "Western European Countries" (i.e., those which were independent after WWII) and "Eastern European Countries" (i.e., those which were occupied by / allied to the USSR until 1989).

In such a hypothesis, it's clear that the first category contains those European countries which subscribe wholeheartedly to "international law" (whether it works or not, or whether it's simply hypocritical behavior), while the second category contains those which are still finding their democratic feet, so to speak, and are not planning to believe enthusiastically in "international law" for some time yet. These countries' signing up for the "European Union" and/or "NATO" is another kettle of fish entirely. While the first is essentially economic, the second is military. Theoretically.