Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
My problem with Yglesias's liberal internationalism
I wrote this as a comment, but I'd like to put it here as well.
My problem with Matt's liberal internationalism is ultimately going to be that law is a very weak way to accomplish our goals. People like to complain that international law has no enforcement mechanism, but that's really beside the point. Even on the domestic level people only follow the law to the extent that they think it is just or expedient. If law actually constrained people, there wouldn't be murders or jaywalking. The fact that we punish murderers after the fact doesn't really say anything about the utility of law in constraining behavior--if you're going to kill someone, you'll do it regardless of the punishment.
The same holds on the international level. If we're going to invade somebody, we're going to do it regardless of what the law says. Even if there were a retributive mechanism for holding people accountable, our leaders would still do it. Does anyone think that Bybee, Yoo, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney will actually be tried for war crimes?
The legal aspects of the lead up to the Iraq war demonstrates this. There is an argument that the war was legal. Maybe not a perfect argument, but it's there. In some ways, the problem with legalizing international relations is that it allows for legal arguments and legal distinctions. Fundamentally, law is not the moral project we want it to be. Thus, making international relations more legal--more based on law--won't make it more moral.
What we need is a national commitment to moral international relations. If the legal framework reinforces that, it'd be great. If not, we can still expect to do the right thing.
Comments (7)
"The fact that we punish murderers after the fact doesn't really say anything about the utility of law in constraining behavior--if you're going to kill someone, you'll do it regardless of the punishment."
This doesn't seem credible. Clearly the idea that you would be throwing your whole life away by killing someone else does play a role to some people.
April 22, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think so. I don't kill people because fundamentally, I don't think it's right to do so. Most people operate like this. Murders occur when people think that it is somehow the right thing to do, or when they are incapable of making the distinction, e.g. a sociopath.
If someone becomes convinced that killing people is the right thing to do, legal consequences are a small counterweight.
April 22, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a point but so does observer2. Actually, I think the argument is rather ideological and often taken to extremes with both sides over simplifying issues. It's not either/or, it's both in balance.
Both internal and external rules and consequences are important. In a more perfect world, both internal and external rules and outcomes would be presciently understood.
April 23, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so sure your argument holds up. Overwhelmingly people obey laws and they do so because humans are a co-operative and co-dependent species. It's in everyone's best interest that we obey laws - that's why the vast majority of people stop at red lights and go at green lights, pay their taxes and do all the things that people do to maintain a level of civility. Without maintaining a level of civility we would not survive as a species. Every society inevitably develops a system of rewards and punishments and it is inevitable that we'll develop a system that is internationally accepted if we want to survive as a species.
Law does constrain behavior, just as custom and tradition does - those people that choose not to co-operate are abberations, not the norm in most societies. People who choose to murder others do so in the full knowledge that what they're doing is wrong - that is why they try to hide it or escape punishment for it. Sociopaths also are completely capable of making the distinction between right and wrong - they just don't care.
The collective sociopathology of this administration is such that it knew full well that what it was doing was wrong, that is why they went to such lengths to hide it and obscure their machinations. The Yoo torture memo is a clear example of consciousness of guilt, if what they were doing or going to do was legal or ethical they would not have gone to such lengths to hide it and provide a legal cover for the participants.
People recoil in horror when the nazi analogy is used, but while the events of the war might have been singular, the behavior is not. The nazis also stole elections, they also provided legal cover and justification for crimes and they also went to great lengths to hide that behavior - that they chose to hide it is again, consciousness of guilt. The Nuremberg trials set the standard for the future that legal opinions and judgements are not a defense in perpetrating international crimes against humanity - that is why they prosecuted attorneys and judges along with the military and civilians and found them guilty of committing crimes against individuals and humanity.
Here is what Douglas Feith told Phillipe Sands in the recent article for "Vanity Fair" May 2008. In speaking to Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers, Feith said, "the Geneva Convention is a treaty in force. It is as much part of the supreme law of the United States as a statute." That this administration chose to rely upon a faulty and incorrect legal opinion is not a defense. They themselves characterized this as a "war on terror" making all participants members of a military, whether paramilitary or not, is beside the point. That they deliberately chose this characterization makes everyone who participates a "legal combatant" because the war is not on a particular or named nation but on terror.
April 22, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're saying the same things in part. I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph--you're providing an explanation for why people behave in ways that are moral. Kant's imperative was that we should only on those maxims which we can will to be universal law, and in fact he argued that it is immoral to lie because if everyone lied, i.e. if lying were a universal law, then society would fall apart. Morality is going to at least include those actions which are necessary for the maintenance of human societies.
However, law alone does nothing to constrain behavior. This is obvious in Sudan, Somalia, North Korea, and all the other states where society has collapsed--there are still laws on the books. It's mere words on a piece of paper. There really isn't any good reason to think that I should conform my behavior to those words unless, as I am arguing, you happen to believe they are right. My argument is that as a prescriptive exercise, international law and domestic laws are exactly the same.
Furthermore, for most crimes, given the chances that you'll actually get caught and punished, legal action doesn't really threaten much. Think of all the people who smoke pot. That's a crime. I will admit that I've driven home from the bars when I shouldn't have on a few occasions. I've driven right past a cop who had another drunk pulled over. Those were crimes.
And I did that because I didn't want to have to get up early and ride the bus to remove my car from a downtown parking lot. It would have been inconvenient.
I actually think my argument is stronger on the international level where the pressures to break the law are much greater than mere inconvenience. If al Qaeda or Iraq or Iran poses a significant threat to us, then I think most political leaders would break the law in order to attack them. Given the responsibility of protecting the state as a political entity and the lives of the populace, the incentive to break the law increases significantly.
As for Bush et al, I think they thought they were right about everything but that they couldn't reveal their true motivations because we wouldn't buy it.
April 22, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be over simplifying.
Yes internal morality/ethics are by far the most frequent regulator of behavior. But external regulators are also tremendously important, even in forming one's internalized rules.
btw, imho Frans de Waal's work on evolutionary psychology and the origins of morality provodes a far more useful understanding of ethics and morality than Kant. Rather than an abstract and somewhat sophistic approach, Frans de Waal explores psychology as it arose on an instinctual level through evolution, and thusly his understanding of morality is more deeply rooted in reality and more fully understands seemly irrational or vestigial aspects.
April 23, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you miss the point - bad behavior is abberant, it is not the norm. The norm is people obeying laws.
If Bush thought they were right about everything he wouldn't have felt the need to cover up, obfuscate and seek a legal opinion - that is clear consciousness of guilt.
April 22, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment