International Law and International organizations

David Crow says: "Right-wing critics of the UN say small nations use the organization as a bully pulpit to criticize the U.S. and the West relentlessly. Leftists say that the U.S. uses the UN to legitimize its imperialist foreign policy. This leads to a curious paradox: if the rightists are correct, they coincide with the "institutionalist" school of thought on international relations, traditionally associated with the left. Institutionalists claim that international bodies hold sway over international politics independently of power realities that dominate global geopolitics. Thus, the benefits derived from membership in these organizations (collective security, access to trade markets, etc.) can be used to provide incentives to adhere to international law and, thus, alter the outcomes that would be produced by a raw power calculus. If, on the other hand, the leftists are correct, they seem to agree with the "realist" school of international relations, usually associated with the right. Realists assert that international organizations have no autonomous influence on international affairs, and merely reflect the balance of power that already exists.

Which position is correct? Presumably, an empirical analysis of UN resolutions has been carried out. Does any WAISer know of serious, well-founded studies that make one or the other argument? Assuming the right is right--i.e., that weak nations do essentially control the UN agenda--is it a bad thing that they have a forum to redress (albeit partially and ineffectively, in my estimation) an unfavorable, and some would say unjust, balance of power?

Some have asserted here that international law doesn't exist. What do they mean by this assertion? Attempts to enunciate principles of relationships between countries have a long and honorable philosophical pedigree that includes St. Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, and Francisco de Vitoria, among others. There are also reams of legislation that regulate international relations, between both specific nations comprehended within treaty organizations and between all nations generally. So when one declares that international law doesn't exist, is he or she really saying that it's unenforceable or undesirable?"

Ronald Hilton - 9/4/02