International law is “the body of legal rules, norms, and standards that apply between sovereign states and other entities that are legally recognized as international actors” (Encyclopedia Britannica). As international organizations and governing bodies have become increasingly prevalent, as has the influence of international law. However, the use of international law has not been as widely accepted as some organizations such as the United Nations, and thus arguments have arisen to pinpoint the successes and failures of such legal standards. Overall the most convincing argument in these cases is that international law has the ability to impact state behavior, which can be seen as a positive characteristic of these rules.
If international law impacts the behavior of states, then this influence can be used to provide incentives for countries that commit to protecting aspects such as human rights or environmental protection within their borders. While there may be a lack of hard punishment for violations of intentional law, there are secondary consequences such as being cut from economic or similar deals, or worse yet being completely ostracized from the global community. These consequences are not the most direct methods of retribution, but they are incredibly effective because of their far-reaching impacts. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created in 1948 to set comprehensive standards for the protection human rights. These principles serve as a common basis to determine whether states are violating the rights of all citizens within their borders. A state can easily violate these guidelines, however, and because there is no legal backing to the Declaration there can never be disciplinary measures or prosecution for countries that have breeched international law. However, neighboring countries or other world powers who become aware of the situation will likely take it upon themselves to condemn the state in violation, which may have more severe consequences than an international court. The most powerful counties in the world will likely have upheld these agreed human rights standards, and therefore are more likely to trade and look favorably upon weaker states with the same goals. If a state chooses to disregard the norm they risk losing trade benefits or backing from world powers, which ultimately could be more detrimental to the leaders of the violating state. These leaders could potentially lose an election or face a coup if they do alienate themselves from global powers, which would be worse than the consequences of voluntarily sending a past leader to the International Criminal Court or similar International legal body.
Specifically, these ideas can be seen when examining the prosecution of Rwandan leaders who incited genocide. Ultimately it was more beneficial for the Rwandan government to cooperate with international forces collecting evidence to use in the trial against the previous leaders rather than acting to protect these individuals and risking separation from world powers, which would ultimately aid the state. The risk of alienation from the international community outweighed the costs of protecting the people who violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ultimately showing that international law can and will affect the behavior of a state.
Sources Used
Shaw, Malcolm. “International Law.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 7 Dec. 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/international-law.
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
“United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals.” The ICTR in Brief | United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, United Nations, www.unictr.unmict.org/en/tribunal.
Brenna, I strongly agree with your points that the international law shapes the behavior of the states. I like the points you mentioned about the secondary form of punishment for states that fail to follow international law. You mentioned that the leaders could lose the election if they alienate themselves from the global power. Do you think in a communist regime as North Korea would care about the election? What form of punishment would you consider for a state like North Korea?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment! You raise a difficult question regarding North Korea, especially because this regime does not appear to be influenced by the behaviors of other states. Because there are no elections or internal threats to presidential power within North Korea, there would have be other forms of punishment brought on the state for violating international law. There have been multiple sanctions brought against the regime for these legal violations, though they do not seem to be curbing future violations. Ultimately, the most effective way of changing this behavior within North Korea would be to inform the citizens of how drastically their lives could improve with the removal of current sanctions and hope that internally there would then be a movement for a regime change towards one that would respect international law and improve living conditions for all members of the country. However, this hypothetical solution is unlikely in the short-term so we must keep searching for effective ways to convince North Korea that international law will ultimately benefit their society.
DeleteGreat post - I really enjoyed reading it! I agree with your argument that international law definitely has an impact on state behavior and that its influence can almost force states to comply to norms such as human rights and environmental protection. You mention the concept of international law and its impact on the prosecution of Rwandan leaders and how it was better for the leaders to cooperate with the international community. Do you think you could elaborate more on this concept? Or do you know of any other instance in history where cooperating with the international community was deemed a better decision than not cooperating?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback, Victoria! I think that generally it would always be better to cooperate with the international community rather than protecting a former leader, since ultimately the international community impacts the state much more than a former president or government official would. To answer your question, there have been multiple times when cooperating with an international legal body has benefitted a country. For example, Côte d'Ivoire has recently consented to investigations regarding crimes against humanity that were committed during and immediately after the 2010-2011 election. If the state had chosen to protect those individuals who violated the Rome Statute they would have risked losing trade or other benefits from their allies and partners. However, by approving the investigation they have been able to maintain their global alliances, which the country depends upon t provide goods and services for their people. In this case the obvious choice was to turn in a small number of individuals for their crimes and cooperate with international lawyers, which is ultimately much better than the international alienation and resulting devastation the state could have received if they chose to protect these people instead.
DeleteThis is a very interesting topic, Brenna. I agree with you that be ostracized in the international community is extremely detrimental to a state, and it is intimidating enough for most states to stay in the norms. But what do you think would happen if a great power, like the united states were to act on its own? Like you said there is no way to enforce international law on states in anarchy, so further what is there to stop a powerful states from doing so?
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post, Brenna! It is clear that international law serves as a system of checks and balances for states. Your example of the prosecution of Rwandan leaders demonstrates when a state or politician does not follow this system of checks and balances it would become a predicament, so they comply to international law. As Riten mentioned, it is more likely that weaker states will follow international law than say independent powerful states like North Korea. Do you think North Korea's reason for non compliance has more to do with their mode of government (communist) or their great level of power?
ReplyDelete