Monday, July 16, 2018



Champions of legislation in Ireland calling for a boycott against Israel (and Israel alone) for the crime of “Occupation” struggled to craft a measure that would define “occupation” so narrowly as to exclude every other dispute in the world (from China’s domination of Tibet to Turkey’s conquest of half of Cyprus) where one nation is in control of another’s territory.
While the legal response to Ireland’s boycott legislation has interesting ramifications, the attempt to create law specifically to punish one nation for an alleged crime that could easily be directed at many others, and justify this injustice using the language of “international law,” got me thinking about whether the concept of international law truly exists. 
In previous postings, I’ve written about how BDS supporters would like to turn the Middle East conflict from a political dispute to a legal one since political disputes can only be solved via compromise (which they’re not interested in) while legal ones require no such compromise but simply the demand that anyone acting illegally stop doing so.
But to get beyond the politics to the core of the matter, we must look first not at international law, but at law itself.  And the first thing we need to recognize is that rule of law rests on two critical principles: consent and enforcement. 
As Hobbes pointed out centuries ago in his Leviathan, agreeing to live under the rule of law requires one to give up a certain amount of freedom in exchange for important benefits (such as the ability to live free from anarchy).  And given the anarchy of the religious wars in Europe that Hobbes was living through, he felt it necessary to give up nearly all individual freedoms to live under a state that could keep the law of the jungle at bay.
We seem to have reached a point in history when the freedoms we must relinquish to live at peace are not so all-encompassing.  But they are our freedoms, which is why members of a society must consent to live together under a set of rules (laws) for a law-based society to function.  Now one can make the case that a child born into a society of laws doesn’t get the chance to make such a choice him or herself.  But the pact described above is a multi-generational one in which citizens agree not just to live by certain laws but to raise their children believing that living under these laws is the right thing to do.
Enforcement is the other requirement for the rule of law to function, specifically the existence of an entity with a monopoly on the right to use violence to enforce the law as well as sufficient power to exercise this monopoly.  Absent an entity to take on this role as sole enforcer of the law, you end up back with the aforementioned anarchy (or, at best, a society where the blood feud becomes the means of seeking legal redress).
Despite various historical attempts to prove otherwise, one cannot have a law-based society based solely on consent without an enforcing power.  Attempts at creating such consent-based societies (such as various communal experiments) either degenerated into violent struggles for power (i.e., the law of the jungle), petered out over time, or existed (and may even continue to exist) as novelties under the protective umbrella of the state.
Interestingly, one can have a law-based society based only on enforcement (not on consent).  But these tend to be tyrannies where the rules that are harshly enforced originate from the caprice of the rulers (be they kings or Politburo members), rather than by consent of members of the state.
I mentioned states in the last two paragraphs since, in our modern age, the only institutions that have been able to effectively implement the rule of law are nation states.  In democratic societies, both consent and enforcement exist together, while in totalitarian states the rule of law is implemented by enforcement alone.  But outside of a cohesive political entity within defined borders and a citizenry that understands themselves to be members of a society within those borders, how one defines the rule of law becomes much less clear.
This becomes particularly apparent when you start to discuss international law which neither emerges from the consent of the governed nor exercises (or even possesses) the kind of enforcement mechanism needed to implement its judgments.
So in an era when nation states are still the primary political actors on the world stage, what are the origins and what is the significance of what we call international law?

To be continued…




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 18 years and 38,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive