To What Extent Does International Law Affect State Behavior

¶ … international law affect state behavior?

How does international

Law affect state behavior?

International law has been established in order to create civil relations between countries. However, the International Court of Justice has no power to enforce either laws or judgements on the states that violate those laws, and States can obey or disobey the ICJ decisions as they see fit. Usually the states breaking international laws interpret them in a way that benefits them and justifies their actions. (International Law) There is much controversy regarding international law and the effect it has on individual states, especially considering that there are numerous cultures that are traditionally accustomed to performing tasks that act in disagreement with the legislation imposed by the international law system. Whereas in the past it was relatively difficult for states to comply with the necessary requirements accompanying the implementation of international law, conditions have gradually changed and more and more nations have expressed their support for international law. This support notwithstanding, there still are numerous states unwilling to commit to all regulations set by international law, usually because they believe that this commitment would contradict their cultural values, security, or economic growth.

Some of the most powerful states in the world have expressed reluctance to act in accordance with international law, rationalizing their position by claiming that they would severely alter their customs by complying with regulations associated with compliance. According to Francis Anthony Boyle, states in the contemporary society are impeded by several "political, economic, cultural, demographic, and scientific factors," in trying to conform to international law. "Such factors include dissolution of the classical balance of power, worldwide revolutionary insurgency, infinitely destructive nuclear weapons systems, the relentless power of nationalistic fervor, division of the world into hostile ideological camps, uncurbed exponential population growth, and unremitting technological and industrial innovation" (Boyle, 1985). These elements have collaborated to make it increasingly impossible for international law to function properly. Although states may philosophically agree with the goals of international law, and may even have the intention of complying, in the context of the above-mentioned obstacles, the reality is that compliance becomes too difficult or inconvenient.

Background

In order to understand the relationships between states and international law, it is necessary to first define the terms, strong state and weak state, and describe what it means when a country breaks international law. According to Harvard Public Policy professor, Robert Rotberg,

States succeed or fail […] according to the levels of their effective delivery of the most crucial political goods: strong states may be distinguished from weak ones depending on how efficiently and effectively they deliver these goods. The most important and valuable of these goods is human security. The job of the state is to protect citizens from foreign invasions and domestic threats, as well as crime.

He posits that states can only deliver other political goods (e.g. open political processes, freedom of speech, infrastructure, etc.), when security has been established. (Rotberg, 2003) Therefore, weaker states will encounter challenges in complying with international law if they cannot keep their citizens secure and infrastructure intact. But what about stronger states that have excellent security and infrastructure -- why do these states sometimes break international law? One possibility is that the laws themselves are flawed.

This paper examines the effects that international law has on states' behavior. It aims to contribute to the academic debate by trying to prove that strong and weak countries have a tendency to break or circumvent international law, as a global system of regulations often hinders their national interests.

When states are faced with international regulations that challenge their security or cultural values, they may choose to cross the line of ethical behavior. For example, in the case of Adolf Eichmann's kidnap from Argentina by Israeli Mossad agents, the Israeli government's goal was to get Eichmann, a Nazi war crime suspect, in order to bring him to justice for committing human rights abuses during the holocaust. The authorities in Israel considered it more important to apprehend Eichmann than to respect international law. Israel had probably studied the costs and the benefits related to breaking international law and concluded that the mission would eventually be rewarding for the nation as a whole. States like Israel are to a certain degree supportive of international law regulations, but are likely to break them in special circumstances (Posner, 2003). The Eichmann case represents a rationalization of human rights violation based on the need to uphold and emphasize cultural values. At a time when Israel was seeking to establish itself as a state, and gain the confidence of Israeli citizens, (as well as the sympathy and support of the global public), Eichmann's due process was not as important as vindication.

Israel's decision to break international law is likely to have been caused by the difficulty related to capturing and extraditing an individual responsible for committing war crimes. An international criminal law would probably have played a very important role in this situation, with Eichmann being judged for the crimes he committed without anyone having to interfere to impede his conviction. The Israeli authorities did not want to risk Eichmann being set free or being in a position that he could exploit (Posner). Although one might find it difficult to understand this state of affairs, the U.S.' general perspective in regard to a criminal court can easily clarify matters. The superpower's representatives have expressed their specific lack of support for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is meant to judge individuals who have committed heinous human rights violations. However, their set of laws contradicts those related to the concept of human rights (Ralph, 2007).

American resistance to joining the ICC is primarily fueled by political factors and security issues. The ICC's jurisdiction would contradict some of the fundamental rights in the U.S., such as the one concerning the right that U.S. citizens have to bear arms. The adoption of global gun control legislation by the American government, enforced by international law would certainly affect people in the U.S., as they would no longer have the right to carry weapons. Accepting jurisdiction of the ICC would mean that the U.S. would no longer be capable of exercising full authority over criminals and trials within the country's borders (Alonso, 2003)

The 9/11 events of 2001 made America's perspective on international law even more complicated. The U.S. preferred to go to war instead of starting an investigation that would require a lot of time and that would probably generate little or no information. The Bush Administration considered that subjecting to international law would basically mean that the country's sovereignty would be questioned. The American War on terrorism would likely have proceeded differently if the country's leaders were to have acted in accordance with international law (Ralph, 2007).

Governments that consider international law to be relatively unimportant are principally the ones refusing to respect international law. Depending on the ideological principles present in some states, they will be more or less willing to act in agreement with legislations imposed by international law. Liberal democracies, for example, can easily consider an international law to contradict some of the values that they uphold. The public international law of money is one of the most debated international legislations, as most governments are reluctant to adopt it because it limits their self-governing, decision-making position. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund have the purpose of providing "a framework that facilitates the exchange of goods, services, and capital among countries" (Simmons, 2000)