Earlier this week China lost a dispute over control of parts of the South China Sea. The Philippines filed suit in an international tribunal over violations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Despite being a signatory of the agreement, China balked at its language when it came to parceling out disputed regions of the South China Sea. And (hypocritical) political figures in the U.S. and Britain pontificated on why the Chinese should heed the decision.
But here is the rub. How is this decision to be implemented? If there is no enforcement mechanism then the decision of the tribunal isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
But while the decision is legally binding, there is no mechanism for enforcing it, and China, which refused to participate in the tribunal’s proceedings, reiterated on Tuesday that it would not abide by it.
And that is the problem with international law. Sure, we can set up tribunals to rule on a variety of disputes around the world - but if all the winner gets is a piece of paper, what's the purpose?
Unless every country agrees to be governed by a particular mechanism and agrees to an enforcement protocol, the law doesn't mean a thing. The United Nations is not capable of enforcing the agreement and neither is any government.
In fact, no one wants an international body that's capable of enforcing international "law." What world leader in their right mind would cede national sovereignty over such issues? What world leader would voluntarily subject his own government to the various prohibitions that the U.N. has produced over the years? If such a body existed is there any reason to doubt that George W. Bush would have been charged with violating international law? Is there any reason to doubt that President Obama would soon join him in the dock?
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Off with her head!
The Salem witch trials live on... in Saudi Arabia.
On Monday, Saudi authorities beheaded a woman who had been convicted of practicing witchcraft. Her crime, apparently, was bilking people out of money promising she could cure their ills.
According to Amnesty International, sorcery is not a capital crime, but some conservative clerics have urged that the penalty be death in order to discourage others from practicing. According to the BBC, the woman's conviction was upheld by Saudi Arabia's highest court. But that still doesn't explain why she was executed.
It is a fundamental tenet under the rule of law that the accused be made aware of both the charges levied against her and the possible range of punishment. A court isn't free to set its own range - it must adhere to the statutory scheme. Obviously if the death penalty is levied for a non-capital crime, the rule of law has been cast aside. And, without the rule of law, we are left with a bunch of thugs ruling by force.
Yet we continue to send millions of dollars a year to the Saudi regime so that it can continue to put folks to death for minor crimes on the whim of a handful of clerics. Executing someone for the crime of theft - and that's all this was, religious mumbo-jumbo aside - is both cruel and unusual and should be condemned.
Along the same lines, the Chinese government just murdered a South African national caught with three kilos of methamphetamine back in 2008. In China, drug trafficking is a capital crime - the Chinese execute more drug traffickers in a year than the rest of the world kills for all other crimes.
Drug abuse is a scourge. Those suffering from addiction harm themselves, their families and those around them. But drug traffickers are fungible. So long as there is a demand, there will be a supply.
Taking a person's life is the ultimate sanction that a state can impose on any individual. It is the antithesis of limited government. It solves nothing. It doesn't bring anyone back or put the genie back in the bottle.
It's just an exercise in control. It's the way the state reminds you just who's really in charge.
On Monday, Saudi authorities beheaded a woman who had been convicted of practicing witchcraft. Her crime, apparently, was bilking people out of money promising she could cure their ills.
According to Amnesty International, sorcery is not a capital crime, but some conservative clerics have urged that the penalty be death in order to discourage others from practicing. According to the BBC, the woman's conviction was upheld by Saudi Arabia's highest court. But that still doesn't explain why she was executed.
It is a fundamental tenet under the rule of law that the accused be made aware of both the charges levied against her and the possible range of punishment. A court isn't free to set its own range - it must adhere to the statutory scheme. Obviously if the death penalty is levied for a non-capital crime, the rule of law has been cast aside. And, without the rule of law, we are left with a bunch of thugs ruling by force.
Yet we continue to send millions of dollars a year to the Saudi regime so that it can continue to put folks to death for minor crimes on the whim of a handful of clerics. Executing someone for the crime of theft - and that's all this was, religious mumbo-jumbo aside - is both cruel and unusual and should be condemned.
Along the same lines, the Chinese government just murdered a South African national caught with three kilos of methamphetamine back in 2008. In China, drug trafficking is a capital crime - the Chinese execute more drug traffickers in a year than the rest of the world kills for all other crimes.
Drug abuse is a scourge. Those suffering from addiction harm themselves, their families and those around them. But drug traffickers are fungible. So long as there is a demand, there will be a supply.
Taking a person's life is the ultimate sanction that a state can impose on any individual. It is the antithesis of limited government. It solves nothing. It doesn't bring anyone back or put the genie back in the bottle.
It's just an exercise in control. It's the way the state reminds you just who's really in charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)