On the (in)convenience of international law: Normally, you dont hear a lot about international law (or at least not a lot positive) out of Washington. Its not been exactly a popular topic in these early years of the 21st century for obvious reasons. Recently, however, the Russian intervention in Ukraine (and the dispatch of its troops into Crimea) has been a cause for much recent denunciation of Putin and crew on the grounds of the violation of international law. Its not that Washington is wrong, its just that hearing it from our leaders falls somewhere between farce, hypocrisy, and nightmare. A recent fine piece by Charlie Savage at the NY Times makes the implicit point in an obvious way. The U.S., which signed onto an international Bill of Rights-style treaty in 1995, wouldnt throughout the Bush years agree that it applied to U.S. actions outside the boundaries of the U.S. Now, it looks like the Obama administration is going to back that position. So whats new? Its well known that international law, as seen from Washington, is a set of agreed upon laws which apply only to other countries and never to us. (Such laws might, after all, interfere with U.S. interests.) And, as novelist Kurt Vonnegut would have written, so it goes. Tom In 1995, Conrad Harper, the Clinton administration’s top State Department lawyer, appeared before a United Nations panel in Geneva to discuss American compliance with a global Bill of Rights-style treaty the Senate had recently ratified, and he was asked a pointed question: Did the United States believe it applied outside its borders? Mr. Harper returned two days later and delivered an answer: American officials, he said, had no obligations under the rights accord when operating abroad. The Bush administration would amplify that claim after the Sept. 11 attacks — and extend it to another United Nations convention that bans the use of torture — to justify its treatment of terrorism suspects in overseas prisons operated by the military and the C.I.A. The United Nations panel in Geneva that monitors compliance with the rights treaty disagrees with the American interpretation, and human rights advocates have urged the United States to reverse its position when it sends a delegation to answer the panel’s questions next week. But the Obama administration is unlikely to do that, according to interviews, rejecting a strong push by two high-ranking State Department officials from President Obama’s first term. nytimes/2014/03/07/world/us-seems-unlikely-to-accept-that-rights-treaty-applies-to-its-actions-abroad.html
Posted on: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:01:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015