Can someone explain to me how you can uphold international norms by violating international norms? That’s a sincere question. I really don’t understand.
Can someone explain to me how you can uphold international norms by violating international norms? That’s a sincere question. I really don’t understand.
That is why I said an attack is the morally correct thing to do (assuming Assad is guilty), but an attack would be illegal. We should not do this w/o an international blessing.
Steve
Illegal because of constitutional constraints, or because of the lack of UN approval?
1. Obama has gone complete Wilsonian. “I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line.” Translation: I am merely a tool of a higher power.
2. There are two branches of Wilsonian foreign policy:
a. Neo-cons see America as having a special role in perpetrating core liberal values that are both responsible for American success and inevitable part of making the world a better place. Natural advancement is frequently blocked by despots that need to be weakened or removed through coercive power. As Wilson famously said in support of various military interventions in Latin America, “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.”
b. Liberal internationalists see America’s role as promoting international institutions, through which a global rule of law is formed and a sustainable peace achieved. American hegemony necessarily compels it to take the lead in accepting new international obligations, even when against provincial self-interest, perhaps particularly so since the U.S. must set an example. Truman and Clinton both initiated significant military intervention abroad based upon United Nations authority, not domestic approval, which epitomizes the subversion of the domestic to the international.
3. Therefore, Obama has become a neo-con. Natural advancement of the greater good cannot be blocked by the self-interest and pettiness of the member states of the United Nations.
4. If that seems implausible, consider the first branch to have divided between the neo-cons on the right and the R2P on the left. The R2P believe that in certain circumstances such as gross deprivations of human rights, states lose their moral authority as sovereigns, and the international community has a responsibility to protect the people of the state from its government. While there is some division within R2P, one group believes that the responsibility to protect is a normative prescription for world politics that provides legitimacy outside of Security Council approval, particularly if it is unable to act.
@jan- Clearly because of the lack of UN approval, or some equivalent body. If we had Romney as president, the GOP would think it constitutional. IOW, I dont know if it is constitutional, but it is what presidents have been doing.
Steve
It’s a distinction without a difference. The United States is a signatory to an international agreement. That has the force of law within the United States. It’s binding. Congress could override it but in the absence of such an override the president’s violating it would be a breach of U. S. law and grounds for impeachment.
Here is some background on one version of R2P (which if it wasn’t clear, means responsibility to protect):
International law can arise from the creation and acceptance of new norms, and there is concerted debate about how to use these to bypass Security Council approval when necessity demands. Example>
You can’t protect civilians from 30,000 feet.
From my last link “On the assumption that strikes deter and influence future behavior, both options may help to protect civilians.” But the crucial point is that there is an emerging movement / legal justification emerging on the Left that would support violating the law in order to reform it.
That’s a good summary of the argument, but it leaves out inherent authority granted by the constitution which cannot be abrogated by law or international agreement. Of course, the extent and limits of constitutional authority, particularly WRT the Executive are controversial and anything but clear-cut. The judiciary hasn’t yet settled things one way or another. So while I agree in principle with what you wrote it isn’t the final truth as there are arguments the other way. Thus unilateral action by the President would be subject to politics instead of a clear-cut question of legality. At the end of the day, though, if Congress authorizes action in Syria then that trumps any international agreement or existing law.
The president has no inherent authority to violate U. S. law. Claiming otherwise would violate the express language of the Constitution, that the president may be impeached and removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. If the president had an inherent authority to violate the law, the president would, by definition, be incapable of high crimes or misdemeanors.
There’s no contradiction or paradox here. The president, too, is bound by the law.
If Congress authorizes military action in Syria, all domestic law concerns are satisfied, but Congress would still be authorizing the President to violate international law. In the past, the United States has excused itself from seeking Security Council resolutions on the grounds that it was enforcing past UN resolutions or engaging in preventative self-defense. R2P seeks to offer a new framework — its on offer to interpret the UN Charter, which if received favorably by other members, becomes international “law.”
I agree, PD, and it underscores my point: the president on his own judgment and authority without the authorization of Congress does not have the power to violate treaties. Congress can grant such authority, in essence abrogating the treaty.