International Law as a Political Project: The speaker frames international law not merely as a system for identifying rights, but as a political project focused on the practical enforcement of those rights on a global scale.
Definition of International Law: For a system to be considered international law, it must possess two specific features:
* It must be Law: A stable, recognized set of rules supported by institutions capable of enforcement.
* It must be International: It is enforced by nations acting individually or collectively through international institutions.
International vs. Cosmopolitan Law:
* International Law relies on sovereign nations and limited international bodies for enforcement.
* Cosmopolitan Law would require a functioning world government, which currently does not exist.
* The United Nations (UN) is identified as being far from an effective world government in theory or in practice.
Existing International Institutions and Mechanisms:
* Treaties: These often establish the rules or create the bodies that manage them.
* Key Institutions: The World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the United Nations (UN).
* Enforcement Reality: These institutions typically lack independent power; they depend on national government institutions to enforce decisions. For instance, UN "Blue Helmets" represent national military forces lent to the UN by member states.
* Methods of Enforcement: Decisions are enforced by governments within their own territories or through the invasion of other territories, often requiring the blessing of an international body.
Critiques of International Enforcement and Selective Justice
Uneven Enforcement: A major critique of current international law is the inconsistency in how judgments are applied on the ground.
Case Studies in Selective Justice:
* Slobodan Milošević (Serbia): Successfully tried and convicted in an international court.
* Franjo Tuđman (Croatia): Was not subjected to the same level of judicial enforcement or judgment as Milošević.
Hypothetical Universal Prosecution: The speaker expresses a desire for a truly even-handed system where high-profile world leaders could be held accountable for deaths caused under their leadership.
* The speaker lists individuals they would theoretically like to see on trial or in a specialized cell block in Illinois, including: Vladimir Putin, Zelensky, Milošević, Tuđman, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.
* The Issue of Consent: Enforcement is hindered because it requires the consent of a nation to turn over its own citizens, or the willingness of a third-party nation to invade another to capture a person.
Realism in International Affairs
Defining Realism: While some define realism as the absence of morality in international affairs, the speaker prefers a procedural definition: Realism is the state of international affairs where no institution exists with the power to enforce a set of rules.
Distinction of Obligations (Inspired by John Rawls):
* Nonreciprocal Obligations: Rules that should be followed regardless of whether the other side complies.
* Example: Torture. A nation should decide not to use torture even if its enemies do.
* Reciprocal Obligations: Rules that should only be followed if there is a secure agreement that both sides will comply.
* Example: Disarmament. It is only morally and practically responsible to give up weapons if there is a guarantee that others will do the same.
Analogy of the Lawless Community:
* In a community with a functioning police force, it is reasonable to give up private arms.
* In a lawless community where the police cannot provide security and others are armed, it may be morally irresponsible to disarm.
The Theory of "No Sister Kammala": Drawing on John Mearsheimer, the speaker uses the anecdote of a teacher from Mearsheimer's elementary school named Sister Kammala, who would intervene to break up fights. In realism, the core problem is that there is no "Sister Kammala" on the international level to force nations to stop fighting or follow rules.
Realist View on International Law: Realists argue that international law doesn't truly exist because there is no authority capable of even-handed enforcement, meaning nations can never have a stable expectation that others will follow the rules.
Liberal Internationalism
Core Tenets: Liberal internationalists believe that a stable set of international laws is either currently in place or is a feasible prospect for the future. They look for stable patterns of behavior that nations can rely upon.
Establishing International Human Rights Law: To make this a reality, two primary questions must be addressed:
1. Setting an "Upper Ceiling": Defining the limits of the law. For example, a law might mandate the private exercise of religion but allow a state to favor one specific religion over others.
2. Mechanisms of Application: Creating systems that can apply law fairly and equally across the entire globe.
The Governance Paradox: A central challenge for liberal internationalism is determining how global enforcement can work without the establishment of a single world government.