And then there's the beauty of law. At this point, I may have lost you my crazy, thoughtful, (one of a small few) reader...but I'm telling you there is something fascinating about law. Specifically laws that are trying to honestly do good, create solutions, and create spaces and mechanisms for people to make positive change.
I was reminded of my penchant for the rhetoric and organization of law twice today, thus I thought it deserving of a blog post.
My honors thesis, as I have mentioned is on truth commissions - specifically the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and the Equity and Reconciliation Committee in Morocco. I've been writing the South Africa section for days now and have been sifting through the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995 which established the South African TRC and created a draft of truth commission law that is awe-inspiring to say the least.
It is of course first beautiful because it was written by a government that cared enough (or at least wanted to be seen as caring enough) to create a legitmiate mechanism for "making things right" after a brutal system of apartheid. Additonally, it added in the whole goal of reconcilation, which while still extemely controversial is fascinating. Try setting down precise language to faciliate reconciliation sometime...it won't be an afternoon project.
The ins and outs of the PoNUR Act are fascinating, from the meticulous defintions of phrases like "gross violations of human rights" which are themselves practically impossible to define...to the mandate of the Commission which draws on theology, philsopohy, the lessons of previous truth commissions, and the political compromises that the South African legislature spent hours debating...to the actual setup of the Commission which while in someways was shortsighted, in other ways is admirably well thought-out.
Of course, it is also this kind of law that brings hope for the realm of law which also issues out pork barrel-filled laws, useless declarations, and free trade agreements that are thousands of pages long and for each page affect the same number of people in a negative manner...but that's a discussion for another day.
My second reminder of my little "crush" on law was in reading for my International Relations class today...a chapter entitled "The Liberal Institutional Paths to Peace" (aka Hannah's favorite stuff all in one chapter).
For those of you who aren't familiar with international terms, let me also just state that "liberal" in this instance does not mean liberal in the sense of Nancy Pelosi "liberal," but in the longstanding liberal tradition which is commited to liberalism, and these days international coopeartion, free trade, free choice, etc.
It is out of this tradition that came first the League of Nations, and then the UN. Liberal philosophy underlies the EU, the WTO, international conferences and agreements, free trade and of course...international law.
This chapter outlined some of the many arguements for and against international law, as well as the principles and limits of international law. For example, international law was primarly set up to protect states and originally set up as norms and common law procedures that states used in dealing with one another (i.e. international trade, law of the seas, etc). However, as international law evolved and became more focused on protecting the individual states were (and are) still the primary actors. Thus, international law is limited by interests of individual states and can only be as strong as participating states make it.
This is thus argued on both sides as a weakness and strength of international law. Critics say that international law is weak and has no purpose because states do not always have to follow it. (However, some of these tend to be the same persons who argue against states like the US giving up bits of its sovereignty to stregthen international law and institutions.) Proponents say that this limit is actually the strength of international law, that because states must agree to conventions and laws and embed it within its own national laws that it shows the strength of the international legal system when states do sign on and hold up the treaties and resolutions. These persons usually argue that it is in the self interest of states to sign on to international legal norms...and that especially in the 21st Century era of globalization and mass communcation/trade/etc that international cooperation and interdependence is necessary and thus so is international law.
It's so interesting! All of the arguments intertwine and bring in questions like:
- Can international law really be law if it binds together states and cultures that lack universal values and norms? Apparently this goes back to a Roman law precept, ubi societas, ibi jus (where there is society, there is law) that requires shared communal values as a prereq for a legal system.
- As a legal system, international law must justify the "competitive pursuit of national advantage iwthout regard to morality or justice." Thus, what is legal under international law is not necessairly what is morally right? Does international law break from this in regard to human rights law? Can it be law if it does so?
- Is international law just another instrument of the powerful to oppress the weak? Is this yet another human invention for those in power to use as a mandate to do whatever they want?
- Does international law really infringe upon a nation's sovereignty? Is this a problem?
- Should the international legal system be institutionalized such that is a more rigid international governing system at some point in the future? Would it just then fall apart amidst global conflict?
- Isn't it interesting that even nations that decry the UN and other international legal norms still find it in their interest to go through the proceedings and support the system while complaining like whiny two-year olds?
That's enough questions for now, but ometime I'll share my fascination for the UN Charter...
No comments:
Post a Comment