- Arts & Literature
- Science & Technology
By Saket Kumar
International law, in principle, seems like a good way to structure the international community, and ‘defend’ all our shining ideals – but in practice, it has a long way to go in terms of transparency and equality. The UN is not a world government, it has no forces of its own– it relies on the alignment of economic and military interests of its members. Perhaps it is inevitable, then, that the countries with a surfeit of these resources will be the ones with a disproportionately large influence within international bodies. The vast majority of those tried within the International Criminal Court (ICC) are African, and neither America nor Russia are ICC members, granting them immunity from prosecution. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 seems like a prime example of this double standard. What kind of message does this send about colonialism?
Much vaunted treaties like the Koyoto Protocol are not equivalent to the making of a domestic ‘law’ – by living in our society, we agree to abide by its rules, but it would not be ok to back out of our ‘agreement’ not to steal someone else’s car for example, on the premise that it would hurt our economies to stick to our own clapped out Ford. But seeing as it’s rather difficult to enforce international law, it’s easy to make vague promises only back out of them a few years later.
At the start of the emergence of “Saudi-backed” violence in Bahrain, Iran-based news group Press TV summed up the frustrations of the ‘non-West’, commenting: “reports say that the US, Britain and some other Western countries are preventing the Bahrain dossier from reaching the International Criminal Court, and this is yet another indication of the double standards practised by the US and its allies when it comes to human rights violations by their friends in the region and elsewhere.”
It might be easy for the privileged in countries with a controlling interest in the ICC to dismiss such allegations as the anti-West ranting of corrupt regimes and oppressive states, but this sort of thinking is hardly very international. And if, unlike domestic law, you can’t prosecute the offending party via an impartial adjudicator, it’s not much like ‘law’ either. Position or power is not a mandate to treat others, your citizens, as you see fit – nightmarish as it is to untangle human rights from cultural perspective, there has to be universal ground rules. But why should we be so arrogant to think these can only come from the loudest powers in the UN? Surely this is tantamount to the imperialism that not so long ago was imposed by these states over the rest of the world? The internationalism that we fool ourselves into seeing is admirable: respect for human rights, cooperation and understanding between peoples, universal equality for all. That is something that everyone in the world, be they Muslim, Christian, Atheist, of any race of nationality, can empathise with. But we won’t get them by supporting a flawed system.