From its newest poll, released this week, WorldPublicOpinion.org concluded that “publics around the world show a fairly strong internationalist orientation. Most favor subordinating national interest to international law and are ready to trust the World Court to be impartial.” Respondents from 21 countries were offered two statements to choose from:

The first statement said, “Our nation should consistently follow international laws. It is wrong to violate international laws, just as it is wrong to violate laws within a country”: the second said, “If our government thinks it is not in our nation’s interest, it should not feel obliged to abide by international laws.”

On average, across all nations polled, 57% said that their country should put a higher priority on international law than national interest.

Notably, the study showed that “support for abiding by international law is strongest in China.” Seventy-four percent of mainland-Chinese respondents prioritized international law over national interest.

But in China, domestic rule of law is often disregarded (as are international-law and international agreements). In fact, the domestic law is derived from a single-party dictatorship, hardly a recipe for legitimacy. And China often turns the law against its citizens, the very people it is supposed to protect. So it’s not shocking that the Chinese want a higher power to appeal to.

The poll respondents’ may have answered differently had they only known that, for example, international law has only minimally, if at all, affected China’s behavior — or that of any state loose on internal justice. International law is tough to establish in the first place because, while justice is universal, different countries have different criteria for legality. And even if a standard were agreed upon, pleas have little effect without enforceable consequences.

And the world is a dangerous neighborhood. A state’s primary responsibility — its “national interest,” if you prefer — is the well-being of its citizens. Above everything, the state must be able to protect its citizens when they can’t protect themselves. To be sure, sometimes international law can help a country serve its citizens. For example, treaties held in good faith, as required by international law, can better trade and security. But disregarding national interest in exchange for a feebly definable, often unenforceable international law is a dangerous idea.

del.icio.us

Google

Facebook

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 at 11:19 AM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.