*Note, this is a relfection to Toby's reflection of Sarah's reflection upon Christian's reflection. This is Toby's reflection:
http://bro-eignpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflection-9-reflection-on-sarahs.html
Toby,
It appears you have dissed, or attempted to at least, my gurl. Though your viewpoints seem to whip back and forth as much as Willow Smith's hair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKLymvwD2U&ob=av2n), I feel it is my duty to defend Sarah's honor and pinpoint some issues I found within your reflection.
I disagree with most on your points about international organizations. You say "I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations", which puzzles me, Toby. If we consider this situation with the understanding that the United States is the global hegemon, and that they do in fact care about their global standing, image, and status, how is commitment to international organizations even a question? Many countries, though often reluctantly, look to the United States as a global leader and role model. Therefore, it is in the United States' best interests to be extremely active and committed in any genuine international entity. Not only to continue to set a precedent as a benevolent global superpower, but to secure it. If the United States wavers in international activity, who is to say another global superpower might take the lead in an international arena? Sure these are just "what ifs", but these are risks that can easily be avoided by active United States leadership and commitment within international organizations.
Also, you seem to have a lot of issues with international law, even stating "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon". Toby, I couldn't even imagine a world without international law. In this age of interdependence international law is of the utmost importance. Do you not recognize the need for regulations on an international scale especially in dealing with wars? International law is the only way to hold a state accountable for atrocities such as massacring civillians, bombing schools, and destroying hospitals. Basically, the world would be a hot mess without international laws and regulations.
You specifically cite the Law of the Sea Treaty, stating: "Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent". How is this possibly a bad thing!? Just recently Israel was condemned on an international scale for its raid on aid flotillas approaching Gaza on international waters. In their raid on these unarmed boats with nothing but humanitarian workers and basic aid, IDF soldiers killed 9 activists. Could you imagine what would have happened if this treaty didn't exist? The entire controversy surrounding this issue is whether or not the soldiers had the right to board the ships and attack the peace activists. If international regulations hadn't stated what a state's power was in international waters, what would have followed after the raid? Laws like the Sea Treaty set standards for how a state should act in different oceanic bodies and specifically addresses the illegality for a state to attack on international waters. Thanks to international laws like the Sea Treaty, non-state organizations can hold a state accountable for breaking global standards, especially within the realm of human rights violations.
Also, you say "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon", and quite frankly I don't see how that is possible. When someone says "Constitutional principles", what do you think of? Personally, I think of freedom, liberty, democracy, justice, all that good stuff. I really don't see how international organizations framing what should be considered a war crime or an illegal human rights violation threatens these principles. If an international regulation is set forth to impede human sex trafficking on a global scale, I hardly see how this threatens to undermine our Constitutional principles. But now of course you will say "of course THAT wouldn't undermine our Constitutional principles, but something else could! You never know!", which I can respect, since my example was merely that, an example. Which is why I go back to my initial point that our dedication and presence in international entities is of the utmost importance. If you feel that international laws may threaten United States Constitutional principles, shouldn't that be a reason for the United States to secure an active role within international bodies to ensure our Constitutional principles are not tarnished?
Sorry Toby, but I feel like the "family business" might need a bailout.
The implementation of international law assumes that a common set, S| S=s, of international standards exists, and that these standards cvan be furthered and perfected through their execution within a global framework of institutions, function g(s), with perfection being g'(s)=0| s>0. Although, since no institution can actually predict or deteremine what the global standard for any social aspect is, {S} = {0}, therefore no s can be reached for g'(s)=0. Thus, this statement renders the existence of international law invalid in respect to coercion.
ReplyDeleteUnless, Cavington, your equation is wrong in assuming that an equality with zero in the first derivative is possible. Maybe there is no s > 0 for which g'(s) = 0 because g is a nonlinear asymptotic function such that lim s -> inf [g(s)] = 0 -- can't use LaTex equation notation here, so it's a bit difficult to simply write what I need to write, but the idea is that the limit of g(s) approaches but never equals 0 as S goes to infinity -- so *of course* there is no s|g(s) = 0. Maybe "perfecting" international standards is a process, not an outcome.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, by focusing on g(s) in this way, you are also assuming that the issue lies with the set S and not with the function g. Better, perhaps: we need a common set of functions G(s)|g(s) maps a standard s (an element of S) onto an outcome o (an element of O, the set of all possible international outcomes). Now, some g(s) depend on cohesive global standards in order to achieve some desired outcome o, but some don't. Then the issue becomes the selection not merely of a standard s, but also and perhaps more importantly the selection of a function g.
Yeah, what he said.
ReplyDeleteMeaning no offense, Prof. Jackson, but you seem to be drawing the conclusion that my statement is comparable to topology (or, "rubber sheet" geometry). While actually, I am using principles outlined in set theory, meaning that I am drawing a conclusion from a particular strategic set, S, consisting of a sequence of strategic actions, such that S = {s1, s2, s3, ... , sn). Seeing that, in a large international setting, the matrices required to calculate the behavioral algorithms seen as directly correlating properties of the elements composing strategic set S, sn*f(x), would become so intricately involved that the statistical noise generated by residuals would render the models useless.
ReplyDelete