Monday Message Board
Open for discussion
Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As a reward to paying subscribers, I’m limiting comments to them. But if you want to comment for free, you can do so at my blog
Follow me on Bluesky or Mastodon
Read my newsletter
Offbeat but interesting analogy between MAGA and Mao's Cultural Revolution:
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/02/08/science-purge-is-part-of-united-states-echoing-of-maos-cultural-revolution/
I say: don't forget Ivan the Terrible and his oprichniki! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprichnina
On the existence of international law
Trump and Musk share a contempt for international law. They are not alone. There is a long line of self-proclaimed “realists” in intentional relations who ask “Where’s the police to enforce this so-called law?” as if it’s a killer objection. Contracts are not enforced by the police except as a last resort when one of the parties is in contempt of court.
I have news for Messrs Trump and Musk. If international law does not exist, neither does the United Stares.
In common with many other countries emerging from successful rebellions or independence movements, the USA has a heroic foundation myth in which the new nation created itself by a mutual pact of defiance and self-defence. The key documents in the American myth are the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Articles of Confederation (1777), and the Constitution of 1787. (The Reconstruction Amendments (1865 to 1870) are as much a source of division as of common celebration). The myth is not false; these were key steps in the construction of the new state on startlingly innovative lines.
But they were not all the story. If you ask the question “Where exactly are these United States you speak of?”, the three documents are silent, beyond their lists of signatories. One essential, defining, feature of a state is clear borders. Where do you find them? In treaties with other states. For the USA, this started with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, not only with the former colonial power, Britain, but also with France and Spain. Later border treaties involved Mexico and Russia as well.
Recognition of borders is recognition of statehood by other members of the community of states. These treaties – necessarily involving other state partners - are part of the corpus of international law. Without them, you aren’t a proper state. Ask the Kurds: they have run their own territory for decades, with armed forces, courts, government institutions, and so on, but as yet nobody recognizes their statehood.
International law predates the existence of the United States. Most old treaties are dead: SFIK no treaty between Rome and Parthia has any relevance today. But a different Treaty of Paris in 1247 bought to an end a long war between England and France. It confirmed the cession to rhe Kingdom of France of the continental territories on the Duchy of Normandy - and the retention by the King of England, as vestigial Duke of Normandy, of the Channel Islands. Jersey and Guernsey cite the treaty in arguments resisting encroachment by London on their status as tax havens and independent jurisdictions, and it comes up in disputes with France over maritime exclusion zones for fishing and wind farms. The continuing validity of the treaty has survived the French Revolution and the Fifth Republic, which is the legal successor to the French monarchy.
There is more controversy over the cession of Gibraltar to Britain by the Peace of Utrecht (1713). On he other side of the Straits, Morocco would like Ceuta and Melilla back too, but again, fifteenth-century peace treaties stand in the way. It’s just as well that parchment is very long-lived.