Off-Sides: International Law!
Would it be in America’s interest if respect of international law, exactly as it is written in the Charter of the United Nations, reigned all over the world? But if that were the case, granting that all States conform their relations to international law, what would the role of the United States be in the world, and what would America really gain from its unparalleled power?
It’s human nature for people to show their strength and make it known in order to assume their desire to dominate. What would an all-powerful America become if it was obliged to conform to international law? Would there be a United Nations-led initiative that would use necessary force to impose the respect of international law? It’s certainly proof of naivety to convoke the Security Council with the conviction that, at this level, there would exist the material capacity to subdue the United States in the case that its armed forces were to invade a country; occupy it; change the power regime; establish a “friendly” government there, and then leave again for other similar “conquests” without asking the United Nations permission. What would the major powers become if they don’t give worth to this “asset,” that is, the military power to subdue the world only to their interests and to those of their allies? Without the repudiation of international law, the Palestinians and the Sahrawi people* would long have been secure in their own right.
Therefore, we’re slowly slipping into a parallel world from a judicial point of view. Countries with guaranteed impunity, who are counting on creating a new Law through permanent aggression.
* Editor’s note: The term “Sahrawi” is used in reference to the population from the disputed Western Sahara territory.
It’s human nature for people to show their strength and make it known in order to assume their desire to dominate. What would an all-powerful America become if it was obliged to conform to international law? Would there be a United Nations-led initiative that would use necessary force to impose the respect of international law? It’s certainly proof of naivety to convoke the Security Council with the conviction that, at this level, there would exist the material capacity to subdue the United States in the case that its armed forces were to invade a country; occupy it; change the power regime; establish a “friendly” government there, and then leave again for other similar “conquests” without asking the United Nations permission. What would the major powers become if they don’t give worth to this “asset,” that is, the military power to subdue the world only to their interests and to those of their allies? Without the repudiation of international law, the Palestinians and the Sahrawi people* would long have been secure in their own right.
Therefore, we’re slowly slipping into a parallel world from a judicial point of view. Countries with guaranteed impunity, who are counting on creating a new Law through permanent aggression.
* Editor’s note: The term “Sahrawi” is used in reference to the population from the disputed Western Sahara territory.
Previous article![]( "An Own Goal on Gay Rights")
