F-22s vs Syrian Fencers

[nittany03]

What is the "law of international relations?" Is that the same as the body of treaties which comprises international law, and which is binding upon signatories (including the U.S.)?

And which any country can flout if it can hold enough things at risk. I'm not saying I don't believe in the corpus of international law you mention. Yet Putin is in Crimea. The Chinese are blatantly flouting UNCLOS in the SCS. Assad is dropping barrel bombs and chemical weapons on his own people. International law only has the force a strong state is willing to put behind it. Tell the dead in Rwanda, Darfur, or North Korea how "binding" the law against genocide is when the international community won't do shit about it because it's politically inconvenient.

Is it right? Hell no. Some random Syrian or Iraqi has the same human rights as I do. But no one's willing to enforce his, because that's "nation-building" and a "quagmire" to the chattering classes. Binding law? Feh. Tell that to the people in the North Korean gulags.

 

[IRfly]

And which any country can flout if it can hold enough things at risk. I'm not saying I don't believe in the corpus of international law you mention. Yet Putin is in Crimea. The Chinese are blatantly flouting UNCLOS in the SCS. Assad is dropping barrel bombs and chemical weapons on his own people. International law only has the force a strong state is willing to put behind it. Tell the dead in Rwanda, Darfur, or North Korea how "binding" the law against genocide is when the international community won't do shit about it because it's politically inconvenient.

Is it right? Hell no. Some random Syrian or Iraqi has the same human rights as I do. But no one's willing to enforce his, because that's "nation-building" and a "quagmire" to the chattering classes. Binding law? Feh. Tell that to the people in the North Korean gulags.

Naw, bro, your phrase "law of international relations" had me wondering if you were referencing IR realism, a core tenet of which is the inherent anarchy of the international system--and another core tenet of which is the centrality of state actors, which is why I would have found it particularly intriguing in this context. But I was wrong--not the case.

But, er, do you really think that law must never be violated in order for it to be binding?

 

[nittany03]

Naw, bro, your phrase "law of international relations" had me wondering if you were referencing IR realism, a core tenet of which is the inherent anarchy of the international system--and another core tenet of which is the centrality of state actors, which is why I would have found it particularly intriguing in this context. But I was wrong--not the case.

But, er, do you really think that law must never be violated in order for it to be binding?

No, I don't think violation of a law invalidates a law.

But note that there's a difference between respect for traffic laws in say, south Italy, and traffic laws here in the States. It's a matter of perceived enforcement. If you don't enforce a law, no one is going to feel obligated to follow it. If a good-faith effort is not made to actually enforce any law uniformly, it becomes perceived as nothing more than a tool for arbitrary and capricious enforcement in support of individual or political ends.

I believe that the only "teeth" of things like UNCLOS, UN Security Council resolutions, or any other legal or quasi-legal body which purports to dictate the behavior of a nation-state is ultimately armed force by another nation state. Mao was right. Political power flows from the barrel of a gun. Yet use of armed force is largely voluntary. We intervened in the Balkans. We didn't intervene in Darfur. Not saying one is right or wrong, and no, we can't intervene everywhere. But in an environment where nation-states cannot or will not uniformly enforce the rule of law, it does devolve into a de facto if not a de jure Hobbesian system.

This doesn't mean human rights don't exist, or that certain actions aren't illegal. China's nine-dashed line is blatantly illegal. Putin's invasion of Crimea is blatantly illegal. But no one stopped them, because there's no "world police," just nations with different interests. And if you can accumulate enough military and diplomatic power to make the rest of the world think twice about forcibly stopping you, a nation-state can basically wipe their collective ass with any treaty they've signed. If they deem it in their interests and don't have a government which respects the rule of law.

 

[squorch2]

I believe that the only "teeth" of things like UNCLOS, UN Security Council resolutions, or any other legal or quasi-legal body which purports to dictate the behavior of a nation-state is ultimately armed force by another nation state.

What power does the WTO have?

 

[nittany03]

What power does the WTO have?

What power its members grant to it by agreeing to abide by its rules.

We seem to be moving towards a world where certain actors (Russia and China primarily) are doing their level best to dismantle the international order everyone is referring to by gauging very well the war-weariness of the rest of the world. And the fact that actually defeating them in a war is several orders of magnitude beyond what any other power would want to accomplish.

I mean, you can make the argument that Russia may ultimately cave based on the sanctions regimes that put in place after Crimea/Donbass. But it seems to me that, rather than looking at an "invincible" US and West, and toeing the line, these countries have positioned themselves where they can turn international norms from "comply with the post-WWII liberal-democratic international order" into "nation-states can do whatever nasty shit they want in their sphere of influence, and you can't stop them." No, the US's hands in that arena aren't clean at all. But again, international norms only count if there's someone to enforce them. And I see more and more where countries are getting away with flat-out illegal shit just because they know no one is going to stop them.

 

[Brett327]

nation-states can do whatever nasty shit they want in their sphere of influence, and you can't stop them.

Like invade Iraq?

 

[Hair Warrior]

Like invade Iraq?

UN Security Council Res. 1441, while imperfect, represents far more international consent than China ever obtained for the SCS or Russia ever obtained for Georgia or Ukraine/Crimea. China, Russia, and Syria even voted for 1441.

 

[Brett327]

That certainly gives our actions a legal legitimacy, but even our allies like France and Germany felt like they got railroaded in 2003. It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm sure lots of other countries are frustrated by U.S. Actions/policies that they perceive to be power doing whatever it wants.

 

[zippy]

That certainly gives our actions a legal legitimacy, but even our allies like France and Germany felt like they got railroaded in 2003. It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm sure lots of other countries are frustrated by U.S. Actions/policies that they perceive to be power doing whatever it wants.

A lot of their frustration is shared by the American populace who, with the benefit of hindsight think Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions...

It probably could be argued sucessfully that we would have been better off just leaving Saddam inc. in control of the country and continued our containment policy approach in the region.

 

[Uncle Fester]

A lot of their frustration is shared by the American populace who, with the benefit of hindsight think Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions...

It probably could be argued sucessfully that we would have been better off just leaving Saddam inc. in control of the country and continued our containment policy approach in the region.

The way the occupation was handled certainly was a mistake. The CPA made a lot of huge errors that lead to all the problems since, up to the current day.

Was the invasion a mistake, and would we have been better off just siting on Saddam indefinitely? That's impossible to say, because we've no way of knowing what would've happened. We could very well be saying "we should've taken out Saddam when we had the chance". Bill Clinton has been roundly criticized for not taking more direct action against bin Laden and AQ, for example.

Whether the invasion was justified is another question, and you really have to squint to make a coherent case for it. But ultimately the bigger stronger powers do what they feel is in their best interest.

 

[Randy Daytona]

What parallel universe is this where I am in agreement with Brett and Fester?

 

[Hair Warrior]

Concur all around with Brett, zippy, Fester.

But, China and Russia are eschewing even the faintest pretense of international discussion and consensus-building.

Counterpoint: The U.S. hasn't always gone through UN/"coalition of the willing" channels to project our power abroad (nor should we, in some cases). Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/29/world/us-vetoes-un-resolution-deploring-grenada-invasion.html

 

[danpass]

.....

Whether the invasion was justified is another question, and you really have to squint to make a coherent case for it. But ultimately the bigger stronger powers do what they feel is in their best interest.

How much time did Iraq have to get rid of it's WMD materials? (chem, bio, etc)

I vaguely remember but think there was 12 (16?) months between declaration and action?

 

[Uncle Fester]

But back to the original question - we effectively control a chunk of Syrian airspace because we can. The Syrians and Russians aren't fighting us over it because it's in their interests not to. "Legal" in this sense is essentially meaningless. The Laws of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions don't address the legitimacy of a war, only the methods with which it's fought. The UNSC obviously isn't going to pass any resolutions condemning us being in Syria. The other Arab League members don't like Assad any more than we do, and we wouldn't be bound by anything they said anyway. It's debatable - and being debated - how far the AUMF can stretch to cover all the various brushfires we're involved in, but as long as Congress keeps passing war funding, it's an academic question.

 

[Flash]

Like invade Iraq?

....But, China and Russia are eschewing even the faintest pretense of international discussion and consensus-building....

We also didn't invade Iraq to permanently occupy it or strip it of its resources, a big distinction folks seem to forget.

How much time did Iraq have to get rid of it's WMD materials? (chem, bio, etc)

They were long gone before we even talked about invading, you can't hide getting rid of them without someone noticing or leaving traces of it.