Whose Laws? Which Laws?

In a recent speech to the U.N., Obama urged the world to work with the U.S. to face the many challenges confronting the world. Global warming, starvation, genocide, and disease were among the scourges faced by the world's population mentioned by Obama. Amidst the global concerns and crises listed by Obama was his statement that Iran and North Korea should not be allowed to develop or possess nuclear weapons and that they should be held accountable under international law.

In regards to international law, the U.S. has historically been selective about which laws should be applied, which treaties are to be honored, under what circumstances, and to which nations. Weapons and tactics expressly outlawed by international laws and treaties have been overlooked and tolerated when employed by the U.S. and its allies. Treaties and conventions have frequently been ignored by the U.S., and other nations, when those treaties and laws proved inconvenient, or contrary to national interests. The cynical circumvention of international law practiced by the Bush administration to classify those captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan as "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war has yet to be recognized by the U.S. No one has been charged.

The legitimacy of law resides largely in its objectivity and universal application. To the extent that international law has rarely been applied objectively, and even more rarely universally, it lacks much of the normative power necessary to bind those subject to it and makes it more difficult for those laws to be viewed as legitimate. Because of this, any attempt by the U.S., or any other nation, to chide and condemn the actions of others under the obligations and duties imposed by international treaties and laws will, more often than not, be viewed as arbitrary and prejudiced by the nations being chastised. If the ban on the development and possession of nuclear weapons is to viewed as binding and actionable under international treaties and laws, the U.S. should begin by challenging those who have already violated those treaties and laws and not limit its ire to those who are only suspected of plotting to violate them.

The U.S. would be on surer ground if it made its demands and objections based on its real motives; national self interest. When the US. seeks to mask its self interest under the guise of "international law" it only adds to the cynicism with which "international law" is viewed by those nations which find themselves subject to it. When the U.S. declares its right to ignore or rescind treaties when those treaties prove inconvenient or contrary to national interests, it undermines the acceptance of treaties as binding. Perhaps if the U.S. declared its intent to recognize international law as binding on itself and its allies, and accept treaties as binding, whether they are convenient or not, it would have better standing in the world to insist on the compliance of others.