I was interested in exploring the topic of public authority
and international institutions, since we worked on ideas for our video
yesterday and this was our main topic. We agreed that these days the idea of law-making
is no longer the exclusive preserve of states. Even though debates on a world
government and world legislation go back to probably the beginning of the
twentieth century, the development of norm-creating functions of international
organizations is a new debate. International organizations and informal
international regimes and networks are inherently engaged in normative
processes that have an impact on states and even on individuals and businesses.
Nowadays, decisions of international organizations are increasingly considered
a source of international law, and it is quite common to regard them in terms
of international regulation or legislation. In addition, and apart from regular
international organizations, an increasing number of other networks have been recognized
to play a role in international or transnational normative processes. The
question is though how much authority do those organizations really have and to
what extent these different forms of international norm-setting can be seen as
legislative power? Basically how many
international rules are really binding?
The question I keep coming back to is "How do you implement and enforce international law and agreements when it's up to the states themselves to implement and enforce?" Even in cases where a treaty calls for arbitration by an international institution, if you're strong/powerful enough, there is little anyone else can do to make such a state comply. Especially in cases where other strong allies or partners agree. This gets in to the paradox we discussed in class where there are international laws but no power over states to implement or enforce those international laws. The rules are only as effective as powerful states want to them to be, at least for the time being. The only advantage is that even voluntary rules have a way of becoming custom and law over time with consistent implementation.
ReplyDeleteSo while there might not be an international Supreme Court operating in a role similar to any state's supreme court, precedent via implementation can become law, to a degree that has in the past been difficult to change. Consider the United Kingdom. They have no codified constitution but a history of case law and agreements dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215.
Like both of you I am wondering how many laws are "binding" and who is doing the enforcing. It seems that there are at least two sets of rules for adherence to international law. Like the UN with 5 veto powers and everyone else, the international system does not make everyone play by the same rules. Scott's example of England is helpful. Is it possible to take a model that works domestically and expand it to the international realm? While there is no constitution in the UK, there were plenty of disagreements that led to violence in solving matters of sovereignty. Is that the only way?
ReplyDeleteThank you both of you for the comments. I agree it is confusing to think about the binding part. I always come back to rationalism and the fact why those institutions have been established. I believe it could be said that the interdependence of states is one reason for the mutual bound. But that interdependence of course can be overruled in seconds when deemed not necessary anymore.
ReplyDelete