Is International Law powerful?

-Written by AJ Reibel, MIR program, New Zealand


The veto is like a fuse box in the electrical system of a house. Better that the fuse blows and the lights go out than that the house burns down.[1]  - Joseph Nye 

                                                  *              *               *

International law is a powerful force on the world stage. Strictly-speaking, international law is based on customary, or normative, precedents and conventional law (signed agreements between states).[2] Yet this overly legalistic and authoritative definition does not do justice to a highly varied system that is based on “… norms, values, and legal rules… [that] shap[e] both the ends to which… powerful [states] give priority and the means by which they choose to pursue them.”[3] International law has recently been discounted – by the present US administration – as an overly idealistic regime of rules. Despite harsh criticism from leading neo-conservative and hawkish realist policymakers in the present US administration, international law should be recognised as a crucial tool designed to win support both at the domestic and international levels and to maximise the effects of hard power. 

The power of international law (IL) does not rest in the precepts of power as described by neo-realists. Instead the strength of IL lies along the lines of Joe Nye’s ‘soft power’ concept. As such, a country that aims to bolster its limited hard power projection with persuasive soft power may promote conventions and treaties that reflect its foreign policies, political ideas, and general values. States have used their support for normative agreements to undermine the credibility and support for other states. Denmark undercut European public support for many Muslim states and Islamic ‘resistance’ movements (such as Hezbollah and Hamas) when it allowed its publishing houses to print cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. The ensuing furore throughout several states demonstrated that various Muslim states and their populations do not embody the precepts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[4] - a regime that the same states signed onto.  

Joe Nye asserts that soft power – based on the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies[5] – is indeed a form of power that, if used effectively, can supplement a country’s overall ability to obtain desired outcomes.[6] In fact, the claim that soft power complements hard power rests simply on the fact that soft power persuades countries to accept the potential use of hard power by a powerful state actor. It is, therefore, vital that a state – interested in maximising its power and achieving desired results on the world stage – employ both hard and soft power in different amounts. As it is preferable to strike with tremendous force and moral weight than to act unilaterally, international law still remains a power multiplier. This is especially necessary in a world of illicit nuclear testing and proliferation of ballistic missile technology.  

Unfortunately, some states have failed to understand the benefits that soft power and international law provide to an economically and militarily powerful state. The present American administration saw hard power as the only policy response to multiple terrorist attacks. Furthermore, by pursing an assertive and caustic policy, the Bush administration managed to marginalise some of its tentative allies (in addition to providing moral ammunition to its critics).  

Had Nye’s explanation that hard military power is not suited to tackling varying transnational issues – such as international crime, infectious diseases, terrorism, and environmental concerns[7] – been taken into account during the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, perhaps the Bush administration would have managed to persuade the international community to share the burden of toppling Saddam and rebuilding Iraq. Instead the US worked to downgrade “...the legitimacy that comes from institutional processes in which other [states] are consulted... [thereby] squander[ing] soft power.”[8] Condelezza Rice pointed out that “America is a country that really does have to be committed to values... [and it’s] not just the sword, it’s the olive branch that speaks to those intentions.”[9]  

Dr. Rice’s comments are diametrically opposed to the scathing and simplistic criticism of international normative regimes that Michael J. Glennon voices in his article, “Why the Security Council Failed.” Glennon concludes that the Security Council failed to confront Iraq and thus was shown to be outmoded and irrelevant. Unfortunately, Glennon’s overly legalistic and insular view reflects his neoconservative frustration with a regime founded with the main purpose to promote greater contact and interaction between great powers[10] - not necessarily to champion ideals or values.  

The fact that the Security Council – one of the foremost symbols of international normative cooperation and dialogue – has brilliantly succeeded in avoiding “great-power war” has become an insufficient reason for the present American administration. This is especially curious considering that neoconservative policymakers remain convinced that the US should be the world’s moral champion while at the same time dismissing international conventional and behavioural norms. As the US seeks to right its ill-conceived foreign policy, its “...claim to be a beacon of freedom in a dark world has been dimmed by Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and the flouting of the Geneva Conventions amid the panicky ‘unipolar’ posturing in the aftermath of September 11th.”[11] 

Future US policymakers should not dismiss international law nor should they dismiss international regimes. Furthermore, state policymakers need to be aware of the true functions of the same regimes that their states worked so hard to establish several decades ago. As American soft power wanes and its hegemony is increasingly challenged, it will need to look to the Security Council in order to rally its influence and alliances to continue to dominate the international stage. Future American administrations should take to heart – and thus reconsider how to gain crucial influence on the world stage – the useful metaphor that Nye ascribes to the Security Council’s international legal weapon of choice – the veto.


______________ 
[1] Joseph S. Nye, Jr. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 119, No. 2 (2004): 269. 

[2] “International Law,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School, http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law [viewed: 27/07/08]. 

[3] Edward C. Luck, “The End of an Illusion,” in “Stayin’ Alive: The Rumors of the UN’s Death Have Been Exaggerated,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 4 (2003): 202. 

[4] Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “… everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference…” Taken from: “Universal of Human Rights: Preamble,” UN – 60th Anniversary: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.pdf [viewed: 27/07/08]. 

[5] Nye, “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy,” 256. 

[6] Ibid., 257. 

[7] Ibid., 263. 

[8] Ibid., 266. 

[9] Ibid., 268. 

[10] Ian Hurd, “Too Legit to Quit,” in “Stayin’ Alive: The Rumors of the UN’s Death Have Been Exaggerated,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 4 (2003): 204. 

[11] __, “Unhappy America,” The Economist, July 24th, 2008, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=11791539 [viewed 28/07/08].