How Sacrosanct State Sovereignty?
You can’t intervene to stop my genocide against my people, the President of Sudan is telling the United Nations, because that would be like recolonizing our sovereign nation. You can’t tell us not to launch a missile, the North Koreans say, because “this issue concerns our autonomy.” We’ll pursue nuclear energy however we want, Iranian President Ahmadinejad keeps saying, because we have sovereign rights to do so.
Are these invocations of sovereignty to be accepted as legitimate affirmations of a core principle on which international society and the state system are organized? Or is there also a norm of responsibility that balances the rights that come with sovereignty?
One response is who are we to raise this issue, as Americans with a history of serial violations of others’ sovereignty and a current administration which is especially cavalier and self-righteous about doing so. Sure. But the issues raised still need to be addressed in the interest of international peace, security and justice.
The traditional conception of sovereignty as rights attributes to states jurisdictional exclusivity within their own borders and grants very limited and narrowly construed bases of legitimacy for other actors, whether another state or an international institution, to intervene in any form in what in their territorial locus are considered domestic affairs. “No agency exists above the individual states,” as international relations scholars Robert Art and Robert Jervis write, “with authority and power to make laws and settle disputes.” But in an era in which intrastate conflict has become the dominant and most lethal form, and in which what happens inside states can have major effects on others in the international community, it has become harder to readily accept the invocation of state sovereignty as a normative barrier behind which genocide and proliferation, as well as other dangers such as cover-ups of pandemics, can hide. The UN Charter “was issued in the name of ‘the people’, not the governments, Secretary-General Kofi Annan stressed with particular reference to genocides and ethnic cleansings. “ It was never meant as a license for governments to trample on human rights and human dignity.”
Pioneering work was done on this in 2001-02 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) and its report, The Responsibility to Protect. The ICISS report’s core conception of the responsibility to protect tilts toward sovereignty as responsibilities of states and not just their rights: "[T]he responsibility to protect its people from killing and other grave harm was the most basic and fundamental of all the responsibilities that sovereignty imposes—and if a state cannot or will not protect its people from such harm, then coercive intervention for human protection purposes, including ultimately military intervention, by others in the international community may be warranted in extreme cases."
To the concern that this ends up opening the way for big powers to go on doing what they want to do, the commission was careful to distinguish its conception of the responsibility to protect from a “right to intervene.” While understanding the historical roots of some such trepidations in colonialism and the Cold War, the commission was unwilling to allow such arguments to be too easily invoked as rationalizations distracting from its core concern about ethnic cleansings, genocides, and other mass killings: “What is at stake here is not making the world safe for big powers, or trampling over the sovereign rights of small ones, but delivering practical protection for ordinary people at risk of their lives, because their states are unwilling or unable to protect them.”
Efforts to strengthen the international nonproliferation regime along comparable lines of responsibilities and not just rights is what earned the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the Nobel Peace Prize. States can’t be allowed to rationalize away the interests of the international community by claiming my business so bud out. No question that the U.S. war in Iraq as well as other Bush unilateralism have made this much more difficult. But buying into invocations of sovereignty by Sudan, North Korea, Iran and/or others poses its own dangers to international peace, security and justice.
A modest proposal:
if we want to limit the suvereign rights of nations, we should join the ranks of nations that have their suvereignity diminished.
Can we declare Geneva conventions "quaint" and reserve to our Commander in Chief (generalissimo?) the right to overrule them?
Can we organize assasinations on foreign soil?
Can we threaten to use, or actually use, nuclear weapons without actually being attacked, or even without any evidence that we are about to be attacked?
Can we design nuclear weapons specifically to be used against non-nuclear targets?
Can we revoke threaties limiting what we can do with nuclear weapons, missiles etc.? If we avail ourself to "escape clauses", can other nations do the same?
Can we conduct research to design more lethal biological weapons?
By the way, what is it about North Korea launching an un-armed missile?
June 21, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the disaster which is the Bush administration it would seem worthwhile to take stock of where we are. We have very little moral credibility or authority, if any. Our reckless unilateralism has not only not eliminated threats it has made them stronger in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have immeasurably strengthened Iran on the international stage to where it is possibly the pre-eminent power in the Gulf; we have also strengthened the theocracy internally. We have shown the limits of Americn power to the world rather than the intended "shock and awe". We have guaranteed that since military power is preferred over diplomacy that any country that views itself as unwilling to follow American direction has to have a military strategy to maintain its own independent path. And finally, despite the superficial agreements with Europe and at times Russia and China, most of these countries cannot pursue jointly with the US any aggressive foreign policy...we are too distrusted both by the leaders and the public they represent. So where does that leave us.
We can pursue independent military measures and that is clearly preferred by many in the Bush group; or we can trust more to international institutions and diplomacy which is anathema to the Bush gang but some gestures in this direction seem necessary; finally we can pursue the ineffectual "diplomacy" that threatens military action but relies on continual pressure. None of these approaches seem to really be workable, but the military option seems the most reckless and the one with the least chance of success (in fact the greatest likelihood of further disaster). A withdrawal from Iraq, strengthening international institutions, a perceptible shift away from American saber-rattling all might change the climate and do more good than any attempt to figure out how to "solve" a specific problem of this order now.
June 21, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"in which what happens inside states can have major effects on others in the international community"
This is the part where the whole idea falls down.
Give me one example where what happens inside a state has negative effects on anybody else, let alone the "international community" (which doesn't exist except as an abstract concept, by the way.)
Genocide in particular is clearly not an example, except to the degree that it forces refugees across borders - and if the US and Israeli example is anything, building a fence seems to be our response to that notion.
The US launches missiles into the Pacific all the time. When North Korea even suggests they might do it, all hell breaks loose. Why? Obviously because nobody likes the regime in North Korea. So what? What does that have to do with the concept of "sovereignty"? Is "sovereignty" only for those countries we like?
Ditto with Iran. Iran joins the NPT, totally abides by the NPT, offers to negotiate any and all sorts of "confidence building measures" outside of the NPT requirements - and gets threatened with military attack - with nukes, no less - anyway.
This is supposed to raise issues of "sovereignty" - exactly why?
"[T]he responsibility to protect its people from killing and other grave harm was the most basic and fundamental of all the responsibilities that sovereignty imposes..."
Really. While I'm glad to see that the "protection racket" nature of the state is recognized here, the facts are that every single state in human history has repeatedly violated that "basic and fundamental responsibility" - and the question of "sovereignty" was never raised before.
Clearly this is crap intended to justify "preventive" and "pre-emptive" war. Regardless of the Commission's lame attempt to restrict the "right to intervene", does anybody here believe that the US would allow itself to be so restricted if this notion were to be, for example, written into the UN Charter?
ALL states are NECESSARILY imperialistic - by the very fact that they assume authority and "sovereignty" over a particular population or geographical area. By definition, NO state can accept the existence of a "competing" state. Ayn Rand argued this exact case in SUPPORT of the "limited" state by arguing that anarchist "protection agencies" would inevitably have to fight each other. The same applies to states and she ignored that fact. The ONLY thing preventing EVERY state from annexing its neighbors is the relative power of that state and the complex alliances states make.
Here's the bottom line: as long as you have states, you will continue to have oppression of their people, and war.
You want to get rid of war and genocide - get rid of the state.
Email me when this happens.
June 21, 2006 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Bruce, Iran pursues nuclear energy not only because of "sovereignty", but because they have INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS that say they are ALLOWED to do exactly what they are doing.
Go back and reread the last IAEA report.
In case you've forgotten, there IS NO "nuclear crisis" with Iran.
Therefore citing it in support of your "sovereignty" thesis is intellectually dishonest.
Not to mention the North Korean example which is equally ridiculous. If North Korea argued that the US shouldn't fire missiles into the Pacific, would you argue that it has a legitimate argument based on the threatening nature of US "sovereignty"?
The ONLY area in which sovereignty might be questioned is in the case of genocide. But the bottom line of ANY questioning of sovereignty is the notion that other nations can unilaterally intervene inside a state. Other than the so-called "Great Powers", you're not going to find many states willing to go along with that notion. If the US weren't a "Great Power", the US wouldn't, either.
Which makes the whole discussion intellectually dishonest because it renders the whole discussion a red herring for unilateral intervention.
June 21, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was blogging about this just the other day.
Briefly, state sovereignity is an outgrowth of a person's natural right to self govern.
But the right to self govern does not imply the right to infringe on anyone else's natural rights.
So the proposition that we can't interfere in a genocide because to do so would violate state sovereignity is bogus.
Intervention may be legitimate.
See The Black Monk's reader blog for a more detailed look at state rights.
June 21, 2006 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
State sovreignity was adopted because in a stable state system, it enhanced global security. Since the state system is breaking down as a practical matter, it should follow that principles of international law such as state sovreignity should be discarded to the extent they are obsolete.
The problem is that we have no adequate substitute for the state system. Neither the US as unilteral hegemon or a dysfunctional and non-representative UN serves as a good arbiter or when state sovreignity should be breached in the name of global security. We desperately need new international isntitutions to corral rogue states and repair failed states. The experiment of exporting NATO to Afghanistan, for all its flaws, is a least a step in the right direction.
June 21, 2006 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
One response will be my only one.
Deliver Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld to the Hague a la Charles Taylor, then we talk response number two
June 21, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't we also need an international institution to punish aggressor rogue states that practice preemption on states they dislike for the purpose of reconfiguring the political map to suit them better creating false causes for war deliberately and repeatedly as in Gulf of Tonkin and WMD? Are "rogue states and failed states" synonymous with the US-labelled "Axis of Evil"? Clearly in your political view the function of international institutions is to enforce American global interests.
June 21, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
JustinDavidRoss meet Justice Robert Jackson
My first response and my last until the war criminals are brought to justice
June 21, 2006 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither the UN nor the European Union found genocide in Sudan. I'm worried by such irresponsible talk because the last time the Democratic Party falsely accused a country of genocide it led to our war on Yugoslavia. There _is_ a civil war and there _was_ an enormous famine in Darfur, and the result is that many have died. Of those facts we can be sure.
Lesser known is that the financially strapped Sudan government, under harsh economic sanctions by the US since 1997, was commended by the World Health Organization for its efforts to defeat the famine problem, which was largely resolved by late 2004. The Sudan government also has been commended by the UN for signing, in June 2006, a major peace agreement with the largest rebel faction.
Imperfect progress is being made. Is that why the Democratic Party is beating the 'genocide' invasion drums louder than ever?
June 22, 2006 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that Sudan, under any circumstances, qualifies as a threat to the United States. I doubt Jervis would think such a small, backwards state is important enough for these United States to get involved in its internal affairs. Obviously, the DPRK and Iran are different. Although with a robust missile defense system we would be in a much better position to ignore their nuclear weapons production. And of course if we weren't in their regions they may not feel threatened by us.
June 22, 2006 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As disturbing as I find the Bush administration's attitude towards international law, the whole "America is the true rogue state schtick" is ridiculous. One has to suffer from tremendous historical amnesia to fail to recognize that American has been the most benign hegemon the world has ever known. (And I make this statement knowing full well the damage we have caused in Guatemala, Vietnam and Iran). Would you seriously rather be a citizen of Belarus than Hungary? North Korea than South Korea? Hong Kong than Taiwan?
The Jeffersonian hysteria is not productive - it short circuits intelligent discussion about the proper uses and limits of American power in building a more just global order. Since I believe that America's long-term global interests are in building such a stable, free and prosperous world, yes - I do think that international institutions should promote these interests.
June 22, 2006 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
mhpine,
I cannot appreciate that it is in anyone's real interest to trash the UN and the infrastructure of its most competent agencies, and start over from scratch. Reform is definitely needed (albeit not in the flavor of John Bolton), but the "need" for "new international institutions" seems suspect.
June 23, 2006 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
mhpine,
Yes indeed. Such sentiment (as distinguished from opinion) amounts to a priority of punishing one party for failing to be perfect while letting genuine brutality slide simply for the virtue of any lack of pretense.
June 23, 2006 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."
Go see Berkowitz's response to that - as far as he is concerned, these were rules adopted by the Commission, approved by the UN, but not written into the Charter, therefore the US is not bound to follow them. Therefore the war on Iraq was legal.
This is the sort of person we have as your average US citizen today - somebody who will excuse ANY criminal action by the US government for ANY reason - as long as it isn't against him personally.
June 23, 2006 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose a cishuman is one who points out that there is a treaty that does exactly what you are saying, the Kellogg-Briand accord. It was ratified starting about 1928, and obviously ignored by the combatants in WWII.
Give my full context next time. For example, I said the Nuremberg principles were adopted by General Assembly resolution. That is not, for practical purposes, equivalent to approved by the UN, since the GA is powerless. Only the Security Council has power, and the Charter and SC resolutions are the only things with treaty power under the Constitution.
Again correcting your quoting selectively, I blasted the Administration for misleading and Congress for ignoring its responsibility, but pointed out that the UN Charter does not prohibit wars that are not brought before the Security Council. In the absence of a Security Council action, the matter, rational or not, defaults to national law.
As long as you're continuing with the ad hominems, I love you long time, GI. See? I can lie as well as you can quote selectively.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 23, 2006 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, there already is a robust missile defense system available against the North Korean launch site: the Navy SM-3 theater ballistic missile defense system, which can hit a NK missile in boost phase. It's the fixed midcourse national BMD system that is questionable as far as working, aimed against a serious threat, and prioritized higher than much greater threats.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 23, 2006 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"pointed out that the UN Charter does not prohibit wars that are not brought before the Security Council. In the absence of a Security Council action, the matter, rational or not, defaults to national law."
And that is my main point - that YOUR point is BULLSHIT - as most international law experts have agreed both before and after the war.
You hide behind the phrase "refrain" in the UN Charter as not prohibiting wars of aggression. That's crap. It's YOUR interpretation, not that of international law experts.
So I repeat - your purpose is to EXCUSE the actions of Bush and the neocons in waging an unnecessary war of aggression.
June 24, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another Transhuman spew of ad hominems in yet another thread. No matter what nanomachines are floating in your head, you do not know what my purpose may be. Bush 43, in my opinion, is the worst president in the history of the United States, recently having passed Buchanan and long having passed Harding. About the only error he hasn't managed is to emulate Taft getting stuck in the bathtub. Does this sound like excusing him?
I have repeatedly posted that the war was unwise, strategically flawed, and poorly planned. I have condemned the Bush Administration for selective disclosure to Congress, and Congress for rubber-stamping the AUMF.
I will not, however, substitute opinion for law. When there is dispute on a point of law, until it is tried by an appropriate body, which could be the UN Security Council or the US Supreme Court, the determination can be made.
Before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed, slavery was legal. Before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed, slavery was wrong. Legality and ethics do not always agree, and opinions and adjudication are not the same thing.
Just to save you effort, since you seem limited in your epithets, let me suggest you now term these remarks dung, bovine feces, scat, droppings, or stool. Personally, I find that I can express myself with a bit more emotional control. Must be part of being cishuman, eh?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 24, 2006 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I will not, however, substitute opinion for law."
Except, of course, that is exactly what you ARE doing when you make pronouncements that the war is NOT illegal - and everyone here can see that.
And the reason you are engaging in ad hominem attacks is because I've punctured your "I'm an expert on everything" image here.
Tough tit. Get used to it.
And you're not even remotely cishuman - merely pathetically human.
June 24, 2006 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your disdain, Sir, is a warming thing. If Your Transhunman Supremacy disapproves of everything I do, I must, indeed, be doing something right.
No tits were injured in the preparation of this message.
It seems silly to point it out, but your claiming legality is settled, my mentioning it has not been adjudicated, and I point out that Anglo-Saxon law calls for formal adjudication, ignores basic principles you find annoying. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. Should I, however, take this seriously from one who declares himself superior to ordinary humans?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 25, 2006 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am disappointed that Mr. Jentleson did not give any example of how he would limit USA's suvereignity to give good example to lesser nations.
I would start from cancelling all agreements giving our troops and commanders immunity for war crimes. It really stinks.
June 25, 2006 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Berkowitz, your statement that "the UN Charter does not prohibit wars that are not brought before the Security Council. In the absence of a Security Council action, the matter, rational or not, defaults to national law" is quite wrong. It is not merely the case, as Transhuman says, that most international law experts would disagree. All would disagree. The charter is clear about this. The only other real way war can be legal is self-defense against an "armed attack." (There have been recent efforts to justify "humanitarian intervention", an idea more in line with Jentleson's main post, but that is not too relevant here, and is of lesser importance and legitimacy. It is more important to understand the basics.) The 2 ways that the US and its "coalition" justify the Iraq war are in line with this - it is argued that old SC resolutions justify the war and that it is a case of (collective, anticipatory) self-defense. Nobody argues as you suggest. States always at least pretend to be following international law - they do not just formally deny the existence of the most basic part of the UN charter. That's not how they play the game.
June 27, 2006 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Then there's the question of Israel....how long, how flagrant does a nation state have to flaunt its criminal conduct and violation of international law before its sovereignty is forfeit?
At least North Korea complied with the NPT
June 28, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
But I digress. Congressman Jack Murtha the other day called the US the number one threat to world peace, and from recent polls, seems that most of the world agrees. The US has no business talking about NK or anyone else until the present criminals are brought to justice
June 28, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Indeed Dr. Jentleson.
June 28, 2006 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
From Bacevich's review of
The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. By Peter Beinart. HarperCollins.Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq. By Stephen Kinzer.
June 28, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink