Farsighted academics

[Fuchs]

@jmm99:

Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.


@Entropy:

"They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward."

That's a key quote that shows that you don't use the European point of view.

It's not about whether the war is clean or dirty, successful or failure.
The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).
The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.

[Ken White]

@jmm99:Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.

That'll fit in with the large percentage of people here who say we should have left NATO in 1990. I suspect we'll all survive if that occurs.

@Entropy:"They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward."

That's a key quote that shows that you don't use the European point of view.

It's not about whether the war is clean or dirty, successful or failure.
The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.

Of course he doesn't use the European point of view. That's like me saying you do not use the American point of view...

As for a crime by European standards; Okay. Uh, you do realize we aren't European? International law? I'll leave the legality debate to my attorney but I will ask you this; since a law is "The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system as international law." who or what is the political authority that enforces this international law?

With respect to "not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose..." I'd ask if those are fact or opinions?

I'm also very, very curious as to what you believe to have been the purpose of the invasion of Iraq?

[Fuchs]

I believe you take too much for granted.

This "being different" taken to extremes and the well-demonstrated lack of respect for others and international law could lead to an isolated USA in less than a generation. Seriously, a McCain term could have accomplished that.

You don't seem to have an idea how poor the USA would be off without the European allies. No, this is not a text about European power; it's a text about how too much seems to be taken for granted.

A permanent alienation and display of different values and disrespect can break the alliance, and I don't think that U.S.Americans understand the possible consequences and how much they could lose.

Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.
No more auxiliary troops for small or big wars.
No more overt intelligence-gathering in Europe.
No more overseas bases in European-controlled territories (including Diego Garcia).
Difficult diplomatic situation for the USA in most Latin American, almost all African, all European, many South Asian countries - closed doors on many issues.
No more economies of scale for U.S. arms production by selling to European countries.
No more military technology exchanges.
Immediate loss of most naval infrastructure for the observation of the Russian northern fleet's SSBNs.
No more intelligence exchange with European countries.
Loss of World Bank president's seat.
Many economic policy consequences (trade wars, copyrights).
Even such simple things like flying a C-17 to Israel would be pretty much impossible without European consent.

We could pretty much end up containing each other in 2020.
Another war of aggression like Iraq would probably suffice.
Keep in mind that a thing like the long-time survival of NATO is a historical anomaly.

This seems unrealistic today, but patience isn't endless, and the change in attitude caused by the Bush administration was already unthinkable a mere ten years ago.
The dislike for the costs associated with confronting each other is probably a stronger bond today than the sympathy for each other and actual benefits are. I read more often about measures to repair/strengthen the alliance than about (efforts to exploit) advantages. It's like about 100:0.
The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years.

U.S. Americans sometimes discuss the alliance and the UN as something almost burdensome - apparently oblivious to the benefits they get from these organizations.
Equally, they seem to think that international law only applies to others just because nobody invades or bombs them (well, with military bombs) in response to violations (so far).



You can't keep an alliance forever if you do to others what you want and tell your partners to accept that you're exceptional.



@jmm:

Johnny breaks into a house and beats up inhabitants.
The judge allows Johnny to defend himself.
Johnny tells him that his own moral compass is higher ranked than the law.
Nobody else cares, Johnny is a criminal.
Now Johnny is the greatest bully in the village and nobody really incarcerates him - but nobody likes him, other think he's a criminal and his family will soon kick him as a black sheep if he keeps committing crimes.

By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.

Our chancellor might have been arrested if Germany had planned to participate in the war of aggression against Iraq.
A failure of the justice to stop the government in that case could possibly have outlawed the government for all Germans - including legal assassination (article 20 GG).

[Schmedlap]

By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.

Maybe this is just my feeble American brain failing to grasp this, but that sentence above sounds self-contradictory. Germans do not pass international laws. But they accept them as above their own - how does that make the Germans sovereign over anything?

[jmm99]

You don't seem to have an idea how poor...

in the future, leave out ad hominems. The sentence is perfectly made by saying: "The USA would be much poorer off without the European allies."

Now, for substance. I agree that the EU, as a monolith, could do all you say:

Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.
....
Even such simple things like flying a C-17 to Israel would be pretty much impossible without European consent.

In short, a monolithic EU could adopt a policy of containment - a Cold War is what it used to be called.

I don't believe that will happen in the absence of extreme US provocation which directly affects the domestic interests of the EU; and I do not believe the US will do that (or would have, if Sen. McCain were elected).

You believe differently and have stated your reasoning.

Assuming that I am wrong, and the EU disowns and blackballs "Johnny", then "Johnny" will adapt and improvise. Perhaps, he will have to pull in his belt and suffer some privations - and discard some delusions of grandeur. Not necessarily a bad thing.

I am aware that Germany is a strong proponent of extended universal criminal jurisdiction - as are some other countries. For the benefit of others here, universal criminal jurisdiction began with high seas piracy. The extended version holds that, if Johnny commits a crime under international law (e.g., in Zaire), Johnny can be prosecuted in a country that has adopted the extended jurisdiction (e.g., Germany).

No question that Germany has a national right to adopt such a law - just as the US has a national right to refuse to recognize a judgment entered under that law. That collision would be decided according to the usual remedies for nations that feel offended.

This discussion could go on to no useful purpose. I believe I know where you stand; by now, you should know where I stand.

Actually, I have a very non-intrusive concept for US foreign policy; but I will not give a mm on what I believe are our Constitutional rights - which are not subordinate to I Law. That is not negotiable with you or anyone else.

[jmm99]

France, as I recall is a Civil Law country with laws being code based rather than Judge based as is here in the US?

My questions are:

1) Is Germany, and is the EU Civil Law based?

2) Is US Environmental Law, an exception or hybrid to the Judge based system?

Yup, all Euro countries (except UK and Ireland, which are Common Law) are Civil Law (title of my comparative law text in law school), which is code-based. As to the rest of the world, whether Civil- or Common-based usually depends on former colonial status. Those nations not colonized had a choice (e.g., China and Japan, which chose code).

Neither system is inherently better than the other; and Civil Law jurisdictions are not a monolith as to I Law - and its place in the pecking order of constitutional precedence. SovCom and ChiCom law (back when I studied them in the mid-60s) were if anything stronger on the concept of their national sovereignty than the US.

OK, you're on target with Civil Law. A bit incomplete on Common Law.

English common law was largely judge-made, but there were always statutes - which had to be applied by judges. When the colonies were formed, all of the English common law and statutes were not accepted - only those that were applicable to the conditions of the New World - as determined by its People. That streak of cussed individual independence began with the Mayflower Compact - the folks at Jamestown may also have had something to do with that, as well (had to put in a little plug there).

In any event, by Independence Day, colonial law was a mix of pure common law (judge-made) and statutes (judge-applied). As time went on, the statutory component increased - something like 400k Federal statutes now (IIRC). So, in appearence, our largely statute-based law seems not that much different from code-based law. In a sense, code-based law is more judge-made because codes tend more to generalized legal statements, which then have to be interpreted by the judges - so, there is more room for "judicial legislation".

For sake of completeness, there is also Sharia law in pure or mixed form. USMA has added a Sharia Law course to its law department. I have no idea how many people take it - or any of the other law courses beyond the basic military law offering.

Hope this helps.

PS: Schmedlap - I too caught the apparent logical disconnect between German sovereignty and the supremacy of I Law. I don't want to speculate, but I suspect that the German concept of sovereignty may be different from ours (US). Fuchs may provide a German-based answer.

[Fuchs]

Maybe this is just my feeble American brain failing to grasp this, but that sentence above sounds self-contradictory. Germans do not pass international laws. But they accept them as above their own - how does that make the Germans sovereign over anything?

A specific law passed by parliament breaks (is higher ranked than) a general law passed by the same parliament, no matter whether earlier or later.

International law is being accepted by such acts like joining the U.N. (which makes the UN charter binding international law) and signing treaties. These are acts in which the sovereign accepts the international law as binding by ratifying it in the parliament.

This allows the international law to break national law while the system works perfectly logical - it's afaik being treated as the more applicable law in such cases.
Our parliament could pass a law that there's no copyright any more, but it would be ineffectual unless we leave the relevant international treaty on copyrights.
We could also issue a law that's in violation of the UN charter, but it would be irrelevant (if our president signs it at all, not sure about that).

By the way; I wrote above our law, and our constitution is afaik not called "law" - I'm not sure about whether international law is bellow, even or higher than the constitution (Grundgesetz). I believe it's in between law and constitution because acceptance of UN charter and such does not require the same large majority in parliament as does a change of the constitution (2/3).

I don't recall that the U.S. constitution explicitly allows wars of aggression, so it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the USA to obey the signed & ratified UN charter and not commit wars of aggression imho. Just imagine how worthless signature and ratification of treaties and charters are/were if every nation could de-value their commitment (without leaving the treaty) by passing a simple law!


Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars".

[Ken White]

...I don't recall that the U.S. constitution explicitly allows wars of aggression, so it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the USA to obey the signed & ratified UN charter and not commit wars of aggression imho.

are never humble and, like America as a nation, I disagree with your opinion...

Just imagine how worthless signature and ratification of treaties and charters are/were if every nation could de-value their commitment (without leaving the treaty) by passing a simple law!

You may wish to give that some thought. My impression is that all nations do that. They will act in their interest regardless of 'commitments.' See German industrial sales to nations on which the UN has placed trading stipulations...

You misunderstood J.M.M., no law was passed, the point is that in our view, no international law can trump the US Constitution which was signed and ratified long ago and precedes all so-called International Law.

Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars".

Hitler was a sovereign? I thought he was 'elected.' What International Law did Wilhelm II violate? My reading of it says he was opposed and got trapped into a war he did not want by his Ministers (the 'experts') and Franz Joseph. He was also IIRC directed westward instead of eastward by his military 'expert' Helmuth the Younger...

[Fuchs]

Industrial sales that were illegal and punished by German justice, Ken. Individual manager's actions don't equal national policy.

And there's really no need for serious replies to half-serious jokes that are meant to lighten up everyone.



I think it would be reasonable to say that International Law doesn't overrule national constitutions in said nations, but most if not all nations consider international law as superior when said nation acts outside of its territory. It really doesn't matter if one nation thinks otherwise; it's just in error then. Or would you consider it as justified and legal that Iraq invaded Kuwait because it had a different interpretation of what Kuwait is (19th province)? No, they were simply wrong.
The USA is big - and even more important: distant - enough to not have suffered much conventional consequences (like bombing/invasion), just lower level consequences (diplomacy, terrorism) due to its behaviour. It's quite naive in my opinion to assume that this would last forever, especially as there's a lot to lose even without war.

We (and I don't just mean Ken and me) disagree on a lot in this thread (and I am certainly not representative for German public opinion anyway), it was even pointless to engage in details (that's why I didn't attempt to discuss the many small disagreements).

Just keep in mind; you might be wrong and your attitude (as expressed in national policy) might lead to national disasters ahead.
Other nations believed they were exceptional and need not submit themselves to rules and could ignore other's reactions - these nations failed because no nation is big enough to sustain such an attitude for long. Said nations are smarter now, they have learned about the consequences of such behavior. They have also learned that they can have a great living with very different, less conflict-prone behavior.

[RTK]

The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years.

Are you saying Europe deserves no blame in their deteriorated security in the past 10 years?

If the answer to the above is "no," what are the internal issues that have brought about a deteriorating security posture?

If the answer is "yes" then what is causing European nations to continue the delicate relationship with the United States as things stand?

[Ken White]

I believe you take too much for granted.

That, I mean...

This "being different" taken to extremes and the well-demonstrated lack of respect for others and international law could lead to an isolated USA in less than a generation. Seriously, a McCain term could have accomplished that.

In reverse order, like many from other nations (and too many from this one), you have a false sense of what a President can do. This nation operates essentially on autopilot; Presidents will jerk it a little to the left or a little to the right but they never -- never -- get it as far their way as they'd like. This one won't either. None of 'em do nearly as much as people think.

He's the 13th US President I've watched; Iraq was my fourth good sized war and I got to play in two of them, I recall the Depression and this is my sixth recession. I have also been told by numerous residents of other nations -- and a few Americans -- since 1947 that we are all evil, we do dumb stuff, we are selfish, loud, gauche and many other things. So I hope you'll forgive me if I just say I read your list, I've heard it all before, some several times -- and we're still here and people are still telling us the same thing. Just a few examples:

Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.

That's been happening since 1946. nothing new there...

No more auxiliary troops for small or big wars.

You're kidding, right?

Difficult diplomatic situation for the USA in most Latin American almost all African, all European, many South Asian countries - closed doors on many issues.

That's been basically true with random exceptions for most of my life. Anti-Americanism may be new to you, it isn't to me.

The dislike for the costs associated with confronting each other is probably a stronger bond today than the sympathy for each other and actual benefits are.

That has always been true, anyone who tells you otherwise isn't paying attention. We contributed to Germany's defeat twice; we forced the British and French out of the Colonial business during WW II and then made them leave Suez in 1956. There is no love for us in Europe and there hasn't been in my lifetime.

U.S. Americans sometimes discuss the alliance and the UN as something almost burdensome - apparently oblivious to the benefits they get from these organizations.

Some are oblivious -- just as some Europeans appear to be.

Equally, they seem to think that international law only applies to others just because nobody invades or bombs them (well, with military bombs) in response to violations (so far).

You frequently give the impression you do not read what others write here in response to your posts. J.M.M. explained quite well the different American and European perspectives on international law and you appear to have not read it or have dismissed it. Your prerogative but it does sort of stifle discussion.

By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.

We do not so accept the precepts of international law.

BTW, you didn't answer my query: Who or what body enforces international law?.

[Gringo Malandro]

I believe you take too much for granted.

This "being different" taken to extremes and the well-demonstrated lack of respect for others and international law could lead to an isolated USA in less than a generation. Seriously, a McCain term could have accomplished that.

You don't seem to have an idea how poor the USA would be off without the European allies. No, this is not a text about European power; it's a text about how too much seems to be taken for granted.

I'm willing to accept that Europeans have a more cynical view of war due to differing experiences. But those experiences didn't seem give them any clarity after WWI, which was at least as devastating as WWII. I find it odd that Europe "got smart" about war precisely at the time they lost the capability to wage it on any significant scale. (It didn't, however, prevent France from sending Bob Denard all over Africa) I sense a bit of geopolitical "penis envy" in the European political class, which is reflected in the common culture.

And will it be possible, politically, for European countries to maintain large standing armies with capabilities similar to what the US has in the region? It seems to me that we are subsidizing your defense. The characterization of Russian conflicts as manufactured by US badgering ignores hundreds of years of Russian history, though I agree that said badgering was not in anybody's best interest. Russia will continue to behave as Russia always has, regardless of what particular flavor of government by which they identify themselves.

Finally, on the issue of respect for European prerogatives, I think multilateralism is important. But there is a certain sting to the bitter and rancorous European criticism, when there are still plenty of Americans that were dragged into TWO incredibly destructive and pointless European conflicts that aren't even in the ground yet. And funny that most of our recent "wars of aggression" take place in dysfunctional former European colonies.

I suspect that when Europe becomes a more reliable and proactive partner in international security, the US will defer to them more often. I hope this happens.

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

You are a moving target in this thread, and have completely derailed it from the original post you made about listening to 33 academics who signed a letter before OIF. When confronted with counterarguments, you've ignored most and simply switched to something else. We're on Nato now, which is the several iterations down the line. If you can't be bothered to answer criticism made against your assertions, then what is the point?

[jmm99]

if you ever shot running boar (target shooting), you'd appreciate the situation.

Seriously, I and RTK asked the most-current questions about NATO - and Fuchs responded to them.

Also seriously, the German view of Iraq is important (see article by Sbee) and it has launched the most serious legal attack on the validity of the Iraq invasion. I don't buy the German position from a legal standpoint, but that part is certainly on topic.

I'd cut him a little (wee little bitsy) slack - until his next post.

PS: RTK posted while I was writing - Yup, I'll have to admit he has a talent for attacking the ad hominem capillaries - hit a couple of mine already, but they don't bleed much.