International Law

[jj111]

This is in response to the answer Ron gave (perhaps mistakenly) that included the reference to the Iraq War being illegal under international law.

I do understand that Ron wants us out of the UN, and wants us to follow the Constitution. I understand peace, friendship, entangling alliances with none.

Does that imply that Ron and the Constitution do not even acknowledge the *concept* of ANY either explicit or implicit "international law?" Is there *NO* international law according to Ron, the Constitution, and libertarian philosophy?

Is there perhaps an international "natural" law, or a "universal" "natural law" - for example, do we recognize the right to life and due process of foreigners, or are any US citizens allowed to go to any foreign country they want and murder people for no reason with guns or other weapons?

I am just asking this for a reason of understanding the political philosophy of whether any foreigners should be considered to have natural rights.

[BuddyRey]

I wouldn't say that believing in withdrawing from the U.N. necessarily precludes the need for mutual international agreements. For example, look at the Geneva Conventions, which are observed of our own accord and that of many other nations. I'm about as far from a globalist as it gets, but I sure am glad we have an international agreement that torture is wrong.

[ctb619]

International law is a pretty broad concept, and it includes customary international law, the generally accepted behavior of states over a long period of time (i.e. it's not OK to invade sovereign states for spurious reasons). Of course our treaty obligations also fall under international law, and I would assume that RP supports the portions of those treaties that do not conflict with the US Constitution.

[austin356]

your mistaken for assuming:

International law = UN, etc


The UN is a form of international law, but international law stretches back countless centuries.

The international law he was referring to was the generally accepted principles of Just War; He correctly pointed out that we were the aggressor.


Libertarians, even anarcho-capitalist, dont dislike law domestically, or even law internationally; They just believe it should not be handed over to a centralized monopolistic institution(s).

[noxagol]

No law can override our constitution. It is the our supreme law.

[ZandarKoad]

No law can override our constitution. It is the our supreme law.

Law of contracts. You CAN override your constitutionally protected rights through contract. And... that is in fact, what we all have done. www.teamlaw.org

[RonPaulCult]

That was a mess up. It's a shame he said it.

[austin356]

That was a mess up. It's a shame he said it.



How was that?

I think he should have made it more clear what aspect of international law he was speaking of but that does not make it a shame.

[noxagol]

Law of contracts. You CAN override your constitutionally protected rights through contract. And... that is in fact, what we all have done. www.teamlaw.org

Contracts are agreements not laws. Laws are mandatory, contracts are not. And the government is not authorized to agree to not follow our constitution.

[RonPaulCult]

How was that?

I think he should have made it more clear what aspect of international law he was speaking of but that does not make it a shame.

Because "international law" is not something Ron Paul is big on and I don't think he wanted to represent himself in that way. He was speaking extemporaneously and just said it. And it got some boos.

It was a mistake.

[Mort]

Because "international law" is not something Ron Paul is big on and I don't think he wanted to represent himself in that way. He was speaking extemporaneously and just said it. And it got some boos.

It was a mistake.

I agree. I think he mispoke. He meant constitional and not international. Its the only way I can rationalize it.

[DeadheadForPaul]

That was a mess up. It's a shame he said it.

I agree...I cringed when he said it

[ctb619]

There is nothing wrong with citing international law as something to be followed, but it is important to clarify exactly what one means because most people erroneously equate international law with the United Nations.

[ButchHowdy]

There is nothing wrong with citing international law as something to be followed, but it is important to clarify exactly what one means because most people erroneously equate international law with the United Nations.

EXACTLY!!

[jonahtrainer]

I agree. I think he mispoke. He meant constitional and not international. Its the only way I can rationalize it.

I seriously doubt he mispoke. There is a whole area of international law. The Founding Fathers were obeying and citing it in the Revolution. Customary practice, like not killing the other country's messengers because they might kill yours and then no one can talk, is a common form of International law. Just war is another theory; don't invade other countries.

One form of International law arises through Contract and is given place in the Constitution under Article VI.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The problem we have is we are entering into Contracts with other nations and performing under them. However, these Contracts are done with only apparent authority and not actual authority. A good example is NAFTA. The exponential rise in the number of Executive Orders is another example.

One of my favorite classes in law school was Foreign Affairs and the Constitution where we examined all this stuff.

[cjhowe]

Contracts are agreements not laws. Laws are mandatory, contracts are not. And the government is not authorized to agree to not follow our constitution.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution


All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[noxagol]

Yes, but they are still not authorized to agree to not follow our Constitution. They cannot make those kinds of agreements. The Constitution is the rulebook for our government and no outside force can overrule something explicitly stated in our Constitution.

[cjhowe]

Yes, but they are still not authorized to agree to not follow our Constitution. They cannot make those kinds of agreements. The Constitution is the rulebook for our government and no outside force can overrule something explicitly stated in our Constitution.

That's correct. But the "contracts" are law. Supreme law.

[Shink]

Because "international law" is not something Ron Paul is big on and I don't think he wanted to represent himself in that way. He was speaking extemporaneously and just said it. And it got some boos.

It was a mistake.

Be honest. He didn't get boos fro talking about international law, he got boos because fox news has a section of the public brainwashed into supporting neverending war.

[ctb619]

Here's a great blog post on this topic
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015135.html

[Kuldebar]

Here's a great blog post on this topic
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015135.html

Yeah, great quote here:


(Anthony wrote: "The fact that even many in the audience cheered Ron's comment on international law (the others probably ignorantly thought he meant the UN, not the great libertarian tradition of international codes of civilized behavior such as the law of neutrals and non-aggression) is heartwarming and breathtaking.")

Many people probably were thinking it was a UN related comment, it was just a comment about sane and civilized conduct between nations.

[iamso910]

Ron Paul made the mistake of overestimating the knowledge of the audience.

I'll admit that I know little about international law and its place in history, and it's clear that 99% of people who heard Ron speak, assumed he was talking about the UN.

The international law argument may be a very powerful one, but it may need more educating than Ron is able to provide with his limited exposure.

Still, Ron may go on with his principles, however it is received. Then I guess it's up to us to catch up and help spread the word.

[Thom1776]

When Paul said "international law", it was in the context that we have to obey our Constitution when it comes to declaring war, AND that the United States, as one nation in the global COMMUNITY of nations, doesn't have the right to invade another, sovereign nation, just as they don't have the right to invade us.

A few of us started booing when they put Giuliani's ugly mug on the two giant screens in the arena. That coincided with the end of Paul's remarks and more started to boo but then we changed over to cheering for Paul because he finished speaking.

Believe me, there was a very large contingent there for Ron Paul, and there was never any large amount of booing directed towards him.

You can hear me clapping, BTW. I am the one with that distinct "popping" clap that stands out from the rest of the applause, and in certain shots, you can see me clapping. I held my hands way up in the air to clap while giving out loud yells of approval.

Trust me, we OWNED that place!

Thanks again to wgadget for getting me that floor seat!

[Kuldebar]

Ron Paul made the mistake of overestimating the knowledge of the audience.

I'll admit that I know little about international law and its place in history, and it's clear that 99% of people who heard Ron speak, assumed he was talking about the UN.

The international law argument may be a very powerful one, but it may need more educating than Ron is able to provide with his limited exposure.

Still, Ron may go on with his principles, however it is received. Then I guess it's up to us to catch up and help spread the word.

And, it's for that very reason the reference to "international law" only registered as strange to you freedom geeks! :p

Most people, as you said, wouldn't even know to blink at the concept. Think about all the other stuff that would have them questioning the world and their place in it.

[dukker]

It's difficult to say exactly what he was referring to, but taken literally, he was absolutely right and there was nothing wrong with his statement.

I've studied international law and I can tell you that the average person is pretty much oblivious to what it really is. The difficulty conceptually is that there is no enforcement regime, so some people don't really think about it as law.

Anyway,
One very ancient and fundamental principle of international law is the use of force. Basically, the use of force is always contrary to the principles of international law (which recognises individual state soverighty as paramount) unless it is considered a justified use of force. There are various justifications, the main one being self-defence.

At the time when the iraq war was starting, there was significant debate as to the legallity of the US' actions. Remember 'pre-emptive' action? If Iraq had attacked the US, then use of force would have been justified. But Iraq had not. The US argued 'pre-emption' as a way to justify use of force but the concept of pre-emption was totally new and alien to international law - invading iraq was a blatant breach of customary international law.

Paul, being opposed to the UN, doesn't really have anything to do with the customary aspects of interntional law - they aren't the same thing. Participating in the UN falls under the 'interntional treaty' arm of international law. Nations can make agreements with each other and the treaty is the are of interntional law governing those relations. It just so happens Paul is against the treaty binding signatories of the UN, but this position is still within the confines of international law.

[Chester Copperpot]

This is in response to the answer Ron gave (perhaps mistakenly) that included the reference to the Iraq War being illegal under international law.

I do understand that Ron wants us out of the UN, and wants us to follow the Constitution. I understand peace, friendship, entangling alliances with none.

Does that imply that Ron and the Constitution do not even acknowledge the *concept* of ANY either explicit or implicit "international law?" Is there *NO* international law according to Ron, the Constitution, and libertarian philosophy?

Is there perhaps an international "natural" law, or a "universal" "natural law" - for example, do we recognize the right to life and due process of foreigners, or are any US citizens allowed to go to any foreign country they want and murder people for no reason with guns or other weapons?

I am just asking this for a reason of understanding the political philosophy of whether any foreigners should be considered to have natural rights.


The Constitution applies to everybody in the world. Remember the constitution doesnt grant anybody rights, it protects the inherent rights of man from the govt. They are not limited to US citizens

[Swmorgan77]

This is in response to the answer Ron gave (perhaps mistakenly) that included the reference to the Iraq War being illegal under international law.

I do understand that Ron wants us out of the UN, and wants us to follow the Constitution. I understand peace, friendship, entangling alliances with none.

Does that imply that Ron and the Constitution do not even acknowledge the *concept* of ANY either explicit or implicit "international law?" Is there *NO* international law according to Ron, the Constitution, and libertarian philosophy?

Is there perhaps an international "natural" law, or a "universal" "natural law" - for example, do we recognize the right to life and due process of foreigners, or are any US citizens allowed to go to any foreign country they want and murder people for no reason with guns or other weapons?

I am just asking this for a reason of understanding the political philosophy of whether any foreigners should be considered to have natural rights.

Well the Constitution allows and gives us a process for entering treaties with other nations. Once ratified by the Senate, those treaties should be viewed as binding provided they do not undermine the Constituiton itself.

Whether that is the same thing as "internatinal law" is the real question. If by "law" you mean the act of a legislative body at the world level, then no I don't think we can recognize it without undermining the Constition.

If by "law" however you simply mean enforcible, consitutionally entered treaties then yes we can and should abide by them.

[tmg19103]

Be honest. He didn't get boos fro talking about international law, he got boos because fox news has a section of the public brainwashed into supporting neverending war.

Correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJkfVdMEx5k