Law Essay, Research Paper

LAW: an OverviewHuman nature consists of three basic components. These are tolive, to propagate and to dominate. If Humanity was left without anyother parameters, this natural state of existence would govern itsbehavior. Fortunately, there are parameters that exist. Theseparameters are law. The topic of this paper addresses the type of lawthat operates in creating potential boundaries for the behavior ofstates. This law is called the Law of Nations or international law. Patrick Moynihan, a senator from New York, has written a book on thissubject called On the Law of Nations. His book argues that states needinternational law to monitor their actions and to maintain order. Healso notes the frequent departures states do from international law. This essay will reflect his plea to return to the norms thatinternational law provides; it will also discuss and identify the moraldilemmas that are present with international law and its relationshipwith states. The term “laisser aller” or “letting go” is used by FriedrichNietzsche to describe this state of nature, in which man residesabsently of law. His use of the term represents the struggle moralitywages against nature and reason. He equates morality in any form, with”tyranny and unreason.” Nietzsche proposes that man’s natural existencebe, in essence, nihilistic. Logically, the political entity known asthe state, created by man will inherit these traits. Thus, theconclusion is that the creation and institution of international law arein direct violation to nature. However, international law exists and states “generally” submitthemselves to it. . Since most of this law is derived from codifiednorms of states, the term submission can be used. There is a disservicecommitted to humanity when the law is broken, not just to those who areweaker in the global community but to the law itself. A violent rapingof the law is committed when it is taken in an a la carte form. Theconstant shifting back and forth from international law to naturecreates an incoherent system and a basis for calling the reversion tothe natural state, evil. In this setting “illegal” unilateral action isimmoral. Conversely, the adherence to the law is equally immoral. Thisconclusion is drawn from the virtue of integrity. Either have acommitment to comply with morality or completely abstain from ahypocritical form of servicing the law with words and no conformity. Consistency, is an extremely important factor of a system of law. Moynihan argues that the United State has begun to traverse apath leading away from its adherence to international law. “There isclear evidence that the United States is moving away from its longestablished concern for and advocacy of international legal norms ofstate behavior.” The implication of the United States’ departure isextremely troubling. The decline of universalism in world politics canbe seen through the example of the United States. Moynihan has no

trouble in finding examples in recent history to support his argument. During the Bush Administration two examples are cited ofunilateral action condoned by the United States, which are violations ofinternational law. The first is the precedent allowing the FederalBureau of Investigation apprehend fugitives of United States lawanywhere around the world. This violates the principles of sovereigntyand jurisdiction. The second example is the United States’ raid on thehome of the Nicaraguan embassador in Panama. This clearly violates theidea of extraterritorality. These actions are interpreted to be inviolation to the very law that the United States constitution promisesto up hold. Because of these actions and many others that arefrequently taking place all around the globe, an underlying disregardfor law in the international community exists. One could conclude thatthere is no real international law but international suggestion. The moral dilemma does not exist in an isolated location, suchas the United States. This is a wide spread enigma that confrontspolitical thinkers of today. The existence of an operational universalsystem in a predominated arena of nationalism is nearly impossible. Thetwo systems have been shifting since the Treaty of Westphalia, accordingto Hans Morganthau. He argues that nations are now “thestandard-bearers of ethical systems, each of them of national origin andeach of them claiming and aspiring to provide a supranational frameworkmoral standards . . . ” This powerful argument proposes that theframework has changed. There has been a shift from that common groundto something self-interested. The reason for the shift is nationalism. Each state maintains that they have the moral system which should beuniversally accepted; thus, only satisfying that part of theinternational law that is right for them. This gives us internationallaw a la carte and consequently, not a viable system at all. International law exists as hybrid system of law. Unfortunately, consistency is a problem. If this was the case in lawon a domestic level there are concessions for enforcement. Theinternational community has no such institution nor stipulation foruniform compliance to its law. This creates a dilemma, how can agrouping of people whose nature is self-interested behave morallywithout encouragement from a compulsory mechanism? This essay reflects the ideas argued by Patrick Moynihan in thebook, On the Law of Nations. Furthermore, it argues the notion ofmorality in the international community, that either there is completesurrender to its principles or total abstinence in participation. Perhaps one day a solution will arise to successfully solve the dilemmasthe world faces in obtaining a world of order. A world where the law isnot based on mere custom but a legislature empowered to create laws thatare binding to all states. Having a system that allows for enforcementand interpretation of the law will benefit the now chaotic world thathangs on the thread of sanity over the abyss of annihilation.