< < <
Date Index > > > |
Pase One: Immediate Mobilization #2 cont. by Adam Starr 15 March 2002 21:46 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
Hello WSN World, I got my scheduling wrong so I've run back to the computer to finish my thoughts. Where was I... Dennis Blewitt considered three different legal systems: common law, civil law, and secular. He suggests that the legal system in Russia/USSR and the Commonwealth exist within a civil Napoleonic legal system which is top down. Dennis goes on to say that rather than the legal systems themselves, there is a need for analysis in terms of power. He states that the structure of the legal system inlfluences behaviour, distribution, and exercise of power. Multinationals have the current power to define and impliment structure and consenses of transnationals in a codified system most efficient to them (Dennis, could you please expand upon "codified"). In essence there is no consenses and the above interest groups have consolidated the power to dictate economics, trade, slavery (contemporary or historical?) and distribution of wealth and resources. International Law has thus become irrelavent with this power concentration. Not only that, but since this power concentration comes from the US, it is the lone suprpower that defining International Law under the guise of democracy and freedom. Dennis suggests that the only way to curb this power is within the courts at the national level (in any given country) to deem international agreements (or laws) as unconstitutional. This push within national courts must then come from the local or regional level. Then enters Andre Gunder Frank. He replied to the comments made by both Charles and Dennis considering the US violations against International Law in light of continued US bombing in Iraq and the NATO/US "Kosovo" War. AGF poses "three and half" excellent points concerning the US and Intenational law 1) No single NATO country consulted their Parliament / Senate concerning military action in Yugoslavia. 2) In the US, confirmation of International Treaties has allowed the US Senate to make stipulations of various parts of such treaties. Therfor, violations of international law is a violation of US law. 3) The present war in Afghanistan has very little domestic opposition. You're either with us or against us and as such, there is no use of national law to defend international law. 3.5) There is no visible public or political concern with any of the three concerns above. Whether the US has the right to wage unilateral war has not been questioned. As AGF stated, "the major attainment of civilization has been law (national and International) to intervene against the Hobbsian war of all against all. How then can it be that this war is being fought allegedly to 'defend civilization' by destroying its major accomplishment? What civilization is there laeft to defend if we do not ask, never mind answer, even this essentially simple question?" In essence, AGF has suggested that the national court has not been a forum for questioning the legalities of military mobilization. This concurrs with both Charles and Dennis in suggesting that power within national courts has been passed to interest groups that serve the neo-liberal agenda. However, one note, I can attest to a correction to point 1 made by AGF. In late October prior to the NATO bombing, the Canadian Parliament did pass a bill concerning the use of military action should the need be. However, it was done in the midst of domestic conflict (not like we have much to conflict about, probably Quebec seperation), prior to any indications that NATO was to be involved in Kosovo, and was quickly passed over with very little media coverage. This just goes to show how the presidence of International Treaties such as NATO or International Organizations (WTO) are increasingly limiting the sphere domestic policy choices. Yes, democracy (whether we've ever actually had it or not) is eroding away from the top down and it is becomming increasingly difficult to address it as the forum gets higher and higher above its sphere of influence. What to do? Where do we aim at? The US? Would we be deemed terrorists by not being satisfied with the current capitalist world-system? I agree with Charles, non-violence is key. I have seen (even witnessed in some cases) the atrocities of violence and genocide in Cambodia with my own eyes. It's a sickness that hard to cure. It spreads like a virus and opportunists rise to the occasion. Afghanistan will clearly be a patient for some time to come. Let us continue our discourse over the legal system considering ways to mobilize against it. As AGF said, why has there been no domestic opposition or even questioning of the legalities of war within the national courts? This can be extended to trade, international relations, etc. Perhaps Bush Jr. and his advisors knew all too well that any oppostion would be deemed anti-American. "You're either with us or against us." Nobody in the US wants that label. Resist convention, it's only neo-liberal... Adam ===== Adam T. Starr Undergraduate of Political Science, UVic 3009 Quadra Street, Victoria, British Columbia V8T 4G2 Canada (011) (250) 472-1223 adam@hornbyisland.com or reunitedhornby@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |