What does legality mean in international affairs?

[ogmios]

Inspired by a previous thread concerning 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' thing, I am spurred to throw this question at general public. I am anti-war and I consider myself more liberal than conservative, but the argument that Iraq-war was not legal just doesn't fly with me. What is the legality anyway when it comes to conflicts of international interests? Yes, there is this entity called UN, and there are some agreements made between big players in the house of UN, but I think that is more like a gentlement's agreement rather than binding contract or whatever that can be enforced. If a bully like the USA decides to ignore the resemblence of legal procedure laid out by UN, what can anyone do about it? What can anybody do to make the agressor pay for it if he is the strongest guy on the block? Nothing. It's a jungle out there and Law means nothing if you cannot enforce it when violated.

To me, some war critiques who are dragging on the legality of this war are off the mark. It's only confusing. I think it is more of a moral and practical issue than legal issue. Do you want to continue to be the world's top bully that everybody fears? That's all good while you are powerful enough to subjugate the whole world, but you have to constantly watch your back because you know for sure you are hated. Or, do you choose to waive your right as the world's conquerer and accept the membership of the world community even if you are most prosperous people in the globe? Despite the wording I choose, I think either one is acceptable, and it's totally up to American people. It's just that we can do away with all the hypocracy regarding so-called 'legality'.

 

[gsaldivar]

You make some very good points.

We Americans live in a society with a highly structured legal system, and I believe we have grown somewhat socially dependent on this system to resolve disputes among ourselves. One result of this dependency is the lack of perspective when it comes to understanding now states handle disputes among themselves, as opposed to how individuals handle disputes among themselves.

I agree with your characterization of international agreements as "gentlemen's agreements" rather than binding contracts. In America, our legal system prescribes a series of remedies and recourses should contracts be broken. In the case of international disputes, this isn't necessarily the case. Though there are some international forums which attempt to arbitrate disputes (ICJ, UN...), remedies must be voluntarily agreed to by the states which are party to a dispute.

Imagine the chaos that would exist in America, if someone convicted of a crime were required to "voluntarily" serve a prison sentence, or pay a fine. As you stated - without active enforcement, law is irrelevant.

Looking back in history, I can't think of a single example of a passive "world leader" state. Either a "leader" state actively enforces its own convictions and rights, or it becomes subjucated to another state which is willing to do the same. "Legality" is a term which can be used to define activity conforming to an actively enforced legal system. In the absence of enforcement - it becomes irrelevant.

In my opinion, the characterization of the Iraq war as an "illegal" war is simply an attempt to influence the general public opinion against this country's current leadership which is operating within an international political arena unfamiliar to most people. Because the general public is more familiar with a highly structured legal system, people who promote this characterization feel that they will identify with their own political ideology (typically anti-war, anti-self-interest, pacifist), rather than that of the current leadership of this country which chooses to actively enforce America's interests in the international arena.

 

[Moonbeam]

As above so below.

 

[B00ne]

The term "illegal war" refers to the rules defined by the UN Charta.

Since the US are A) the originator and more important B) the (wannabe) world leader, they are under special scrutiny (as opposed to states like NK, where u kinda expect non-compliance). Especially western democratic states that have always looked up to the US (EU for example) and expect that the leader of the world behaves according to the set forth rules and is a leading example on how things should be done (world leaders nowadays are also expected to be moral leader (in western style democracies) So of course particularly countries (populations) here in Europe are upset/desillusionized, to find out (now more apparent then ever) that the thought to be leading example in democracies/law... is no better than the so called rogue countries, using your might (especially the military one is despised since we have a very different experience about war than you) only for your own agenda without listening to anyone and more importantly placing yourself above anyone else and ignoring the world (environmental policies or the international court come to mind).

That are some reasons for the huge outcry when the US does act "illegaly"

It is not so much about what America does, more about contradiction of claim and reality ( at least I think so)