The U.N. and International Law

Hugo Grotius

If we are to accept the widely sanctioned and most traditional definition of law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good promulgated by him who has care of the community” the question of international law can be a sticky one to answer since there is no official enforcer of such law. Sovereign nation-states have their duly elected officials who, by right of natural law, enforce the positive laws of the state. However no such body exists on the international playing field. Over the past several years, the question of international law has come under renewed analysis. Recent wars in the Middle East have sparked heated debate, centering on accusations of alleged “violations” of the international rule of law. The purpose of this discussion is not to delve into the painstaking details of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan nor to investigate the abject corruption running through the veins of the U.N., (although both would be worthy topics to address and I would be up to the challenge) but rather to extrapolate and define more clearly the important tenets pertaining to law at the international level. As the role and prestige of the United Nations expands, for better or worse, on the world stage, it would serve as a useful refresher to brush-up on some basic concepts of international law. In addition, we should address the obvious question of whether or not the U.N. possesses any juridical or legislative authority to enforce international law, in light of present realties.

With the break-up of a unified Europe in the sixteenth-century, statesmen found it expedient to acknowledge some kind of unified concept of law under which all nations, becoming more heterogeneous by the day, could come together. Francisco Suarez sought to weave together the common customs of the day, but it is Hugo Grotius who is widely considered to be the father of what we today consider international law. According to Jesuit ethicist Fr. Austin Fagothey, Grotius maintained that “in the absence of a higher tribunal, relations between nations must be governed both by the natural law, which as the law of reason is common to all men, and by voluntary agreement among states, based on their enlightened self-interest. Fagothey goes on to say, “International law, then, is not the result of any definite enactment, but of long custom and usage.” It goes without saying that a state is always going to be motivated primarily by its self-interests, and rightly so. Fagothey further adds, based on principles of natural law that, “Independence, is a state’s life; a state may defend itself against unjust attack and against undue interference by other states in its affairs.” Just how might a nation’s self-interests be clouded by the “undue interference” of other countries? The past several years remind us that the question of a country’s legitimate right to self-defense in the face of international discord and pressure is a controversial one. Does a nation’s membership within an international body in any way involve a partial surrendering of its sovereignty to the extent that its self-defense must be sanctioned by an international panel? If it proceeds without the international nod, is it a particeps criminis in the violation of international law? I think it’s fair to say that some would like to see a “new world order” that would subsume supposedly dated and dangerous nation-states into one world body. Somewhat naively, it is assumed that international conflicts would, in a more civilized way, find peaceful resolution thus putting an end to the power politics of old. The table of diplomacy would finally triumph over the sword, heralding a new era of peace. This sort of thinking has already penetrated the walls of the European Union. Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi is among the most filial adherents of this new approach to government. However Margaret Thatcher put it succinctly when she said “There is no world government, because there is no world ‘nation,’ no world political identity, no world public opinion. Thus the only way to fulfill the UN Secretary General’s…aspirations would, paradoxically, be to suppress democratic instincts, resist democratic pressures, and drain democracy of all real meaning.” The idea of a world government, benignly overseeing the affairs of all the nations of the world, is not only extremely shortsighted and naïve, but contrary to the very idea of nationhood since sovereignty is an inherent ingredient of a nation’s existence.

The International Court of Justice


As I see it, in terms of positive law, international law pertains solely to contractual agreements and customs. There is no omnipotent enforcer of international law, despite the desire of the United Nations to graft that power onto its body. The Hague is the seat of the International Court of Justice (located in the aptly named Peace Palace, only in Europe!), but even here, both parties would be required to have given their assurances prior that they would obey the court’s ruling. The United States, fortunately has given no indication that it will sign onto this idea. The only way a country would be guilty of violating an international law would be for it to unjustly back-out of a treaty that it had signed on to or to invade another country with no motivation outside its own desires for expansion and hegemony. The United Nations can be useful as a forum for international meetings and as a hub for negotiating non-binding resolutions, etc., but it would be foolish and dangerous to accord this international body some sort of super-nation status. Jeremy Rabkin reflects that, “International human rights law is not the product of court rulings, but of international conferences.” Salient here is the point that international bodies nowadays get lost in a sea of round-table discussions and conferences, circular dialogues that go nowhere fast but give those involved the feeling that they’re doing something. Most of these international forums are counterproductive and wasteful at best and a threat to national sovereignty at worst, particularly to U.S. national interests. A red light should go up when we hear talk of alleged violations of international law without any clear definition of what exactly has been violated. The subject is far more involved than most realize. I’ll close with a great assessment of the United Nations made by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton. “There is no such thing as the United Nations. The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants it to work. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it would not make a bit of difference.” John Bolton, February 3, 1994.