Just Musing

[jackofallgeeks]

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?).

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Well, SCOTUS decisions are primarily binding on the legislature (these laws you made don't count) or executive (don't enforce these rules). It's only secondarily that they are enforced on the people (now the police can come for your medical marijuana, no matter what California says). But the SCOTUS itself doesn't have any power to make the President, etc. do anything.

But I don't think that we should say, "oh, well, SCOTUS decisions are irrelevant." Most of the time, they are obeyed - and even when they're not, it's rare that anyone just says, "nope, not going to listen" (I mean, the current admin has gone to a lot of trouble to "reinterpret" SCOTUS decisions on detainees, rather than just ignoring them). You could say that this is because there's a kind of "enforcement" through societal legitimacy - if the President just started blatantly saying that he was ignoring the constitution, there might well be a coup or revolution (or at least a price to pay in November). But that sort of "enforcement" is also present in the international system (trust me, if you want sweetheart trade deals, you'd rather be Ghana than Sudan).