III. Comment on the following quotations:

• "The reality as demonstrated through their [states] behavior, is that states do accept international law as law and, even more significant, in the vast majority of instances they . . . obey it." (Christopher Joyner)

• Freedom means responsibility, not freedom from responsibility (McGovern)

• Putting law over man is a political problem comparable to that of squaring the circle in geometry. Solve this problem well, and the government founded on the solution will be good and free from abuses. But, until you have solved it, be sure that instead of enthroning laws, as you imagine, you are really enthroning men (Rousseau)

• Though the legislative be the supreme power in every commonwealth, it is not nor can possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people (Locke)

• "If the government becomes а law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law" (Brandeis)

• "The problem here is the lack of clarity and coherence [that enables] international law [to be] easily stretched,… to be a flexi­ble fig leaf or a propaganda instrument." (Wright)

• The law of Nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding all over the globe, in all countries and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of then as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or intermediately, from this original (Blackstone)

IV. Suggested activities for students:

1. The question about precisely what behavior is proscribed for a head of state is creating a new controversy. International law still is unclear about the limits. Here are some past heads of state who potentially, according to the Time (December 14, 1998) could be called before courts to defend their use of arms, either against their own people or its wars.

• Idi Amin (Uganda)

• Sadam Hussein (Iraq)

• Jeane-Claude Duvalier (Haiti)

• George Bush (Persian Gulf War) (The USA)

• Margaret Thatcher (Falklands/Malvinas War) (Britain)

• Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia)

Review several sources of news to find whether any of these people were convicted of criminal charges. Account for the taken measures or for the inaction.

2. You are asked to present a list of people who are to face the trial for crimes against humanity. Who would you include in the list? Choose one person to prepare a brief account of his/her deeds that might be considered as crimes against humanity.

3. America under both Bill Clinton and George Bush has shunned a new international criminal court. The Bush administration has pulled out of efforts to agree on a verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention. It also rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. How then can the USA which purports to be “a nation of laws”, be respectful of the law yet simultaneously above it? What must other nations, which have expressed their willingness to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the ICC, think of the USA’s refusal to do so?

4. There is an opinion that treaties and other quasi-legal arrangements restrain the autonomy of countries. This is buttressed by the argument that efforts to implement such treaties as if they were laws, through international courts and the like, are unconstitutional, illegal and politically dangerous, for the only legitimate laws and judicial systems are those rooted in and held accountable by national constitutions and parliaments. Do you share this point of view? Why or why not?

5. Would you agree with the phrase that “exceptionalism is for the powerful”? Do you think that a country, provided that it is a superpower, can get away with the International Law? Can International law in this case be regarded as a straightjacket in which a country doesn’t wish to place itself?

6. Some pundits state that a strong democracy resents having its hands tied by international agreements, for doing so limits the rights of domestic voters and institutions to set their own rules. America has, for instance, consistently fought to have socio-economic rights (such as trade unions and social welfare) excluded from international agreements, and differs from many countries (though not Japan) over the death penalty. Express your attitude to this viewpoint. Do you think it to be a good excuse not to abide by the International law?

7. Write an essay on the topic: “Law is designed to deter crime, but it is unreasonable to expect it to prevent it.”