> [International law doesn’t] have moral virtue, as, of themselves, laws have no agency. They are laws, not religious rules that are sacrosanct as a result… Human laws are made by fallible people within the particular circumstances of history. They can quite easily, therefore, expire in the fulness of time…
> The truth is that the source of the ECHR’s legal status comes solely from the determination or political agency of the various states who sign up to its obligations. Those same state signatories could, if they so wished, withdraw their assent at any time and be no less morally bad as a result.
Maybe, but this seems to assume out of hand a positivist position on human rights—that they exist as laws, but otherwise have no existence if not for the laws. It’s fine to believe that, but contra the author, if human rights do exist as more than mere law, then no, the laws that enshrine those rights *are* sacrosanct. And as it happens this is also a completely reasonable and common opinion. The exact laws might be flawed, but in principle they should not be amenable to political convenience.
The author just does seem to even consider that other people might believe this and instead spits out a theory that maybe internationalists just view national laws as a moral bad in-of-itself—and I mean maybe there are some crude internationalists like that, I’ve met some people here that give me that impression—but that’s definitely not “the only way” to make sense of the internationalist position. You can’t convincingly argue against a position you don’t understand, and this guy doesn’t understand internationalism.
tregitsdown on
I get the impression either the author does not understand the beliefs and positions of internationalists at all, or he’s constructing a strawman to avoid having to address the thorny parts of his claims.
International Law is morally good only insofar as it promotes human interest or utility, and insofar as it protects Human Rights, which he mentions only once.
Human Rights should *not* be treated as the author states laws should be- they should not be abrogated based on national interests, or popular will, convenience, or even “democracy.”
Withdrawing from the ECHR may be fine in isolation, but doing so *because he wants the country to abuse human rights,* and the ECHR is standing in the way, is wrong.
He does have a point about the weakness of international law in the face of the violence nation states can bring. We don’t have a solution for that, yet, until a stronger force than the nation state can wield real power and violence to bring the nations to heel.
2 Comments
> [International law doesn’t] have moral virtue, as, of themselves, laws have no agency. They are laws, not religious rules that are sacrosanct as a result… Human laws are made by fallible people within the particular circumstances of history. They can quite easily, therefore, expire in the fulness of time…
> The truth is that the source of the ECHR’s legal status comes solely from the determination or political agency of the various states who sign up to its obligations. Those same state signatories could, if they so wished, withdraw their assent at any time and be no less morally bad as a result.
Maybe, but this seems to assume out of hand a positivist position on human rights—that they exist as laws, but otherwise have no existence if not for the laws. It’s fine to believe that, but contra the author, if human rights do exist as more than mere law, then no, the laws that enshrine those rights *are* sacrosanct. And as it happens this is also a completely reasonable and common opinion. The exact laws might be flawed, but in principle they should not be amenable to political convenience.
The author just does seem to even consider that other people might believe this and instead spits out a theory that maybe internationalists just view national laws as a moral bad in-of-itself—and I mean maybe there are some crude internationalists like that, I’ve met some people here that give me that impression—but that’s definitely not “the only way” to make sense of the internationalist position. You can’t convincingly argue against a position you don’t understand, and this guy doesn’t understand internationalism.
I get the impression either the author does not understand the beliefs and positions of internationalists at all, or he’s constructing a strawman to avoid having to address the thorny parts of his claims.
International Law is morally good only insofar as it promotes human interest or utility, and insofar as it protects Human Rights, which he mentions only once.
Human Rights should *not* be treated as the author states laws should be- they should not be abrogated based on national interests, or popular will, convenience, or even “democracy.”
Withdrawing from the ECHR may be fine in isolation, but doing so *because he wants the country to abuse human rights,* and the ECHR is standing in the way, is wrong.
He does have a point about the weakness of international law in the face of the violence nation states can bring. We don’t have a solution for that, yet, until a stronger force than the nation state can wield real power and violence to bring the nations to heel.