The Perils of Ignoring International Law
Here I explain why the everyday citizen should pay closer attention to international law as the principal disseminator of human rights protections. By not affording this body of law the status it deserves, we risk allowing our rights to be overturned by State agendas
International law, unlike domestic laws, regulates the conduct between States in their international relations, and to a lesser extent, the conduct within a State’s borders. Salient areas of international law include, but are not limited to, trade and extradition agreements, anti-terrorism legislation and the prosecution of war crimes.
Disturbingly, this body of law is quickly losing its influence and enforce-ability in the face of rising global populism and States who refuse to be bound by international standards.
A reoccurring debate within legal circles, the perceived ‘softness’ of international law-the idea ‘legal facts’ are often sidestepped in favor of politics or selectively applied-is a constant tug of war between those who maintain international law can alleviate human suffering, and those who view the construction of a hierarchical power creating intentional moral norms through the law, as overly ambitious.
In any case, a set of rules by which citizens can plausibly enact social justice measures (such as filing grievances at the European Court of Human Rights) hardly seems to be a bad thing, yet a legal measure few of us are aware of.
On one hand, this legal quandary might sound like a problem only for politicians and practitioners of the law, while on the other, it would be remiss of us as global citizens to dismiss the international legal order since it is the cornerstone of human rights. This can be seen through treaties such as the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights (UDHR) which sets ‘basic respect’ for human rights enjoyment as a key obligation for States to respect if they are to continue ruling legitimately. If a State were to demonstrably abscond from the ethos of this treaty, it risks allowing other State’s to intervene or dismantle its government based on humanitarian concerns.
So who is in charge? International Law independent of the State, or the State as the enforcer of said laws?
While in reality, the extent of the obligations of a State has to its people to ensure human rights is far from a clear-cut scenario, the specter of international law at the very least can act as a deterrent to those who wish to use their power in incendiary ways. The substantive qualities of what exactly constitutes violations and which States are to beheld accountable, is sadly a matter left up to the discretion of the international community.
International law in its current form thus operates more like a ‘promise’ or a signal of good intentions to co-operate with the international community, rather than a hard set of rules. This is why we have States like Saudi Arabia who seem to operate free of much international criticism despite their woeful human rights track record.
Due to this oscillation between international law and the inherent will of the State, even an ostensibly draconian and corrupt regime such as Saudi Arabia may continue to exist because in the context of world politics, it remains free to impose any sort of regime it chooses.
This sets a dangerous precedent that rights may be removed at any time, are not universal as claimed and ultimately, allows governments to reserve the right to lead oppressive or discriminatory regimes.
In this sense, many central concerns of human rights which we believe to be widely applied, such as the Convention of the Rights of the Child or the International Bill of Rights for Women become ‘optional’ agreements- State choose to be bound by these laws and choose the method or the extent to which they want to enforce them, rather than being obliged to enforce them. What is a ‘basic’ human right and what isn’t, is mainly left to interpretation.
Allowing international law to remain ‘soft’, places citizens at an uneasy juncture between their rulers and to what level the international community can guarantee a right to live free from persecution. This distinction comes with the harrowing consequence that without an informed citizenry who may insist upon adherence to such treaties, human rights cannot remain a legal guarantee. Signalling this pivot from international human rights law in 2018, the US withdrew completely from the UN Human Rights Council.
Jus Cogens- The Rule that can’t be broken?
Thankfully, there is one exception this atmosphere of selective treaty enforcement. Jus cogens principles in international law are a select few methods of behavior that no state, no matter what or under any circumstances, may engage in.
International agreements such as the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide rightly act as a powerful instrument to hold State’s accountable for atrocities and with WWII fresh in its memory, this treaty aimed to curb the ‘total’ power of a tyrannical State. Prior to this, there was little to no international legal norm by which it was explicitly forbidden for States to engage in genocide, mass murder and similar deviant acts.
Believe it or not, without international law, there is literally fucking nothing to stop your own government from imprisoning minorities, political opponents or terrorizing its own citizens.
This is why international law is so important both as a practice and an academic discipline. It is literally the only instrument to guarantee a modicum of freedom to a citizen and sets a ‘no go’ area for States and an impermissible method of conduct. Yet an alarming trend in current politics seems to be admonishing the global order- no longer do we look at this international standard of “hey don’t murder your own people or round everyone up to death camps?” as a bad thing. Instead, State’s decry the need for nationalist agendas and ability to retain complete control over legal matters.
Look at Brexit-Look at Trump- in both of these instances the biggest bone of contention for people was the illegitimate authority they perceived themselves to be under from outside forces. Brexit decried the influence of Brussels and the EU, Trump complained tirelessly about unfair international agreements and distanced the US from international judicial organs such as the International Criminal Court. Yet these are the very mechanisms put in place by our predecessors to protect citizens against the misuse of power. If a State were to abide by the moral underpinnings of international law, a legal obligation to respect enshrined human rights should be the cause of little concern.
In reality, international law in this context affects very little of internal life in any country, other than the protection of civil rights and the individual. For example, if the US were to be a signatory of the International Criminal Court, the ordinary citizen would notice nothing about their daily life changing. Why? Because the court only adjudicates over war crimes.
So unless you’re planning to invade a country illegally and murder civilians rather than combatants, you shouldn’t give a shit whether or not the ICC can prosecute your nationality. But when you think about Afghanistan, it makes perfect sense that the US would be wary of the ICC. Why? Because they committed war crimes. And by further distancing themselves from international law, both the US and the UK are opening the door to the erosion of civil rights within their own borders. And that should worry everybody.
It doesn’t matter if a State claims to be a ‘democracy’-the stark reality is that ‘democracy’ is just another title-without international law a State can do whatever it wants at any time and we are all just sitting here while the only mode of accountability gets trashed.
