On Law
The Death of International Law and of the UN Security Council.
The differences between Europeans and Americans as outlined in yesterday's essay form part of Glennon's argument that the Security Council has become inept. These differences are cultural and political. He argues, at least in part, that the culture of America has led to the demise of the UN Security Council. He lists attributes concerning the question of when international laws should be made:
- Americans prefer after-the-fact, corrective laws
- They favour leaving the field open to competition as long as possible
- They view regulations as a last resort
- Regulations only should be used after free markets have failed
- More comfortable with innovation and occassional chaos
And of Europeans:
- Preventative rules aimed at averting crises and market failures before they happen
- Strive to identify ultimate goals, anticipate future difficulties and try to regulate in advance
- A preference for stability and predictability
These I do not consider criticisms, merely an outlining of differences in spirit and culture between Americans and Europeans.
It is these differences, Glennon argues, that have had the most disabling effect on the UN system since its foundation. And thus begins his point by point breakdown of the failure of the UN.
How The UN Failed
"Since 1945, so many states have used armed force on so many occassions, in flagrant violation of the charter, that the regime can only be said to have collapsed. In framing the charter, the international community failed to anticipate accurately when force would be deemed acceptable. Nor did it apply sufficient disincentives to instances when it would be so deemed. Given that the UN's is a voluntary system that depends for compliance on state consent, this short-sightedness proved fatal."
And so the UN has gone the way of the League of Nations. And so too has the position reverted to that of the Kellog-Briand Pact, that effectively tried to outlaw war. The diplomatic historian Thomas Bailey noted on that the Pact:
"proved a monument to illusion. It was not only delusive but dangerous, for it...lulled the public...into a false sense of security"
And Glennon thus rightly notes, these days no country would be deluded into thinking that the UN Charter protects its security.
Some may argue, and I have noted the argument in the media, that since Bush went to the UN before the invasion of Iraq it shows that international law still shapes power politics. But Bush only told the UN what the US intended to do, and that it was either with the US, or against it. Glennon says in a damning quote:
"Although the effort to subject the use of force to the rule of law was the monumental internationalist experiment of the twentieth century, the fact is that that experiment has failed"
But unfortunately in the case of the Iraq crisis:
"The first and last geopolitical truth is that states pursue security by pursuing power"
And so it is with the US. Any country in the position of the US would do exactly the same would they not? Has any empire in history behaved differently? As Thucydides said to his generals, to tell the defeated Melians "You and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do".
So how then have the cultural differences between the US and Europeans brought down the UN? It is in the Europeans wish for multipolarity, strength in numbers, and the US wish to be unilateral since it is the most powerful nation on earth. Any nation in that position would do the same, seek to preserve itself by exerting its power globally. It has been the same throughout history, but perhaps not to a global extent before.
The haggling over Resolution 1441 serves as an example of the different desires of both groups. The fate of the Council was sealed by American unipolarity, just as it was during the Cold War by bipolarity. France, Germany China and Russia all sought to keep some sort of balance, to achieve multipolarity, but it was not to be since the US had already decided to break the rules anyway. It is not a criticism of the US, merely a point of fact.
Ultimately as Glennon notes:
Nations will continue to seek greater power and security at the expense of others. Nations will continue to disagree on when force should be used. Like it or not, that is the way of the world.
9:25:05 PM 
|
