John Noble (
jackofallgeeks) wrote2008-07-14 07:39 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Just Musing
This is
something that's bugged me from time to time, whenever I read about
International relations. To put a name to it, the fact that there seems to
be relatively few ways to actually enforce international 'rules.' The
article is talking about how the head of Sudan has been accused of war
crimes, but Sudan doesn't recognize the court that's making the
accusations. I believe it was Locke's view that international relations was
as close as modern man got to "the state of nature," which rather cynically
holds that brute force is the only true rule (might makes right, mostly
because who's going to stand up to you?).
something that's bugged me from time to time, whenever I read about
International relations. To put a name to it, the fact that there seems to
be relatively few ways to actually enforce international 'rules.' The
article is talking about how the head of Sudan has been accused of war
crimes, but Sudan doesn't recognize the court that's making the
accusations. I believe it was Locke's view that international relations was
as close as modern man got to "the state of nature," which rather cynically
holds that brute force is the only true rule (might makes right, mostly
because who's going to stand up to you?).
no subject
Also, "might makes right" isn't really the rule in the SoN. Hobbes' idea is that, in a SoN, you have a "right of nature" to take whatever you want (there is no justice without enforceable agreement). But, the first *law* of nature is "seek peace" (since reason will tell you that the war of all against all is against your interests). For Hobbes, only a state can bring peace, and so you should seek to create a state (Leviathan) to enforce contracts. The logic of this argument pushes in the direction of a global state - the usual reason given for not having one is either relative non-interaction of states (false, at least now) or simple impossibility.
On your original point... there's a huge discussion here, but I'd point out that enforcement isn't the end-all and be-all of law. For instance, if all law had to be enforceable, US Constitutional law would not be law (as Jackson said, "Justice Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.")
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject