Once again, American missiles are exploding in the Muslim world.
On March 17, the United Nations Security Council approved a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized member states to take “all necessary measures” — except military occupation — to protect civilians.
And the international community has responded with vigor. Since the weekend, American planes have helped enforce the no-fly zone while submarine and carrier-based cruise missiles decimate Libya’s military command structure.
But like other recent coalitions, this bomb-dropping alliance has developed a distinctly Western leadership, with America, Britain and France wreaking the most destruction.
The airstrikes have sparked a global debate, with powerful nations – including India, Russia, and China – issuing strenuous objections.
The Arab League initially supported intervention, but several Arab leaders have since reconsidered. Almost the whole continent of Africa has opposed it.
And in many foreign presses, the whole situation is being cast as yet another American power grab in an oil-rich Muslim nation.
These arguments raise serious questions about U.N. authority and legitimacy; unfortunately, those same questions arise almost every time the U.N. acts.
International law is an unsettled field, and its current incarnation has been widely criticized. Events like those in Libya cut right to the heart of the debate.
New among the U.N.’s critics is New York University Professor Ronald Dworkin, a prominent legal scholar and natural law philosopher. Dworkin gave his first public lecture on international law at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in February.
In that lecture, he argued that the international legal system is fundamentally flawed and should be rebuilt from the bottom up. The problem, he insisted, is in the basic premise of international authority: consent. His proposal drew upon the ancient philosophical debate between moralists and positivists.
Moralists believe in a natural law that exists independently of human institutions.
Legal positivists, on the other hand, believe that law is made up by humans and derives its authority from human institutions.
Our international law regime comes out of the positivist tradition. For this reason, international institutions, including the U.N., generally rely on the consent of the governed.
This causes problems when the governed don’t consent.
In the U.N., reneging on a treaty obligation can be as simple as withdrawing from that treaty. The organizational emphasis on cooperation sometimes yields bizarre results; until earlier this month, Libya sat on the Human Rights Council. And when cooperation breaks down completely, military force is by far the least utilized remedy, for reasons built in to the system.
There is no international army; U.N. military action depends completely on the voluntary participation of member states. Even the “blue helmets” are borrowed soldiers, lent by the various armies of interested governments.
So when the U.N. authorizes a no-fly zone, it’s not always clear who will implement it.
In Libya, the usual suspects have stepped up.
But this complicated power structure has many asking who’s doing what. Is the U.N. or the U.S. bombing Libya?
The question itself is problematic, because without credible international institutions, there is no international law.
Reach John at john.a.gaylord@asu.edu
?
