DISADVANTAGE/LEADERSHIP BAD
INTERNATIONAL LAW CRIPPLES USA GLOBAL AUTHORITY
THE NEW TURN IN INTERNATIONAL LAW DEVELOPMENTS MAKES IT AN ENEMY OF USA FOREIGN POLICY GOALS
David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey 2000/2001 WINTER The National Interest HEADLINE: The Rocky Shoals of International Law //VT2002acsln
Although international law has always been a consideration for American foreign policymakers, it has rarely commanded the focus of their attentions. Under the next president, this will have to change. Since the Cold War's end, a number of international organizations, human rights activists and states have worked to transform the traditional law of nations governing the relationship between states into something akin to an international regulatory code. This "new" international law purports to govern the relationship of citizens to their governments, affecting such domestic issues as environmental protection and the rights of children. Among other things, it would: nearly eliminate the unilateral use of military force; create the unattainable requirement of avoiding all civilian casualties in combat; promote the criminal prosecution of individual state officials by the courts of other states and international tribunals; and permit -- or even require -- international "humanitarian" intervention in a state's internal affairs. Recast as such, international law constitutes a real and immediate threat to U.S. national interests.
NEW TURN IN INTERNATIONAL LAW STRESSES PUTTING NATION STATES AT THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey 2000/2001 WINTER The National Interest HEADLINE: The Rocky Shoals of International Law //VT2002acsln
With the end of the Cold War things have changed. Activists, scholars, international institutions like the United Nations, and even a number of governments (including, episodically at least, the Clinton administration) have redoubled their efforts, championing a new international legal order by which states are subject to the will of the elusive "international community" at large. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been the leading force in this process. They have been particularly active in promoting the adoption of international treaties and conventions, including the Rome treaty (which established the new permanent International Criminal Court, or ICC), the Land Mines Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.
NEW TURN IN INTERNATIONAL LAW REPRESENTS AN EROSION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY
David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey 2000/2001 WINTER The National Interest HEADLINE: The Rocky Shoals of International Law //VT2002acsln
At the core of these efforts is a frontal assault on sovereignty as the organizing principle of the international system. Proponents of the new order are not shy about saying so. Among the new international law's strongest supporters is Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has plainly stated,
"Great nations who understand the importance of sovereignty at various times cede various portions of it in order to achieve some better good for their country. We are looking at how the nation-state functions in a totally different way than people did at the beginning of this century."
INCREASED INTERNATIONAL LAW UNDERMINES USA WORLD LEADERSHIP
David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey 2000/2001 WINTER The National Interest HEADLINE: The Rocky Shoals of International Law //VT2002acsln
Second, as a practical matter, the new international law has the potential to undermine American leadership in the post-Cold War global system. Even more fundamentally, international law may well make the world safe for aggression, by imposing undue constraints on those countries that are willing to use force to deter and punish it. Although, as noted above, the new international law has a number of manifestations, those elements dealing with the use of military force, and the potential consequences for individual American officials who order or implement its use, are the most advanced and pernicious. As the world's pre-eminent military power, with global interests and responsibilities, the United States should be very concerned about any effort to create international judicial institutions capable of prosecuting individual soldiers, officers and elected officials in the chain of command.
CREATION OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS WILL EFFECTIVELY CONTROL USA FOREIGN POLICY
David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey 2000/2001 WINTER The National Interest HEADLINE: The Rocky Shoals of International Law //VT2002acsln
Overall, there is no doubt that, insofar as they can successfully claim the right to prosecute military and civilian leaders for violations of the laws of war and international humanitarian norms, international judicial bodies and interested states will be able effectively to shape American policy. An American president would be far less likely to use force if there were a genuine possibility that U.S. soldiers or officials, including himself, would face future prosecution in a foreign court. Both our allies and our adversaries fully understand the importance of molding the new international law to fit their needs, and its power as an effective weapon against the United States.