Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea: I think that we don't have to sacrifice our security. We don't have to sacrifice with ourselfes. This is why the state has to guarantee security. We have to know how to balance the security. We have to learn how to claim liberty. We have to unite everyone to get our own liberty. We should not allow that these notices that affect us, those manipulating notices, affect our liberty.

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Look, Maria I don’t know if I can really answer this, I’m not a - I don’t know enough about public international law. But sometimes international law is put in place in order for it to embody a principal rather than a practice. You know there have been examples where people have been brought to book, where the international legal community, or the international public opinion if you wish, has forced transgressors to be held account, when local government has failed to do so. But I think it is a very valid observation. There is no real will, or ability, to govern, or to have international laws governing that which local laws tend to ignore. So if a government tends to ignore a law, then it’s very difficult to get an international collegiate to persuade or to coerce a national government. But there are precedents for it. And I think the principal should exist, and we should keep working towards trying to convince –trying to add value or power or empower the idea that government will be held accountable. I mean, in South Africa, where I come from, the global community responded, and isolated the Apartheid government. Sanctions are used in that manner. So I do believe international sanction is important if a national government is transgressive …

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Then there’s no public international law when there is no effective enforcement or mechanism to apply it. That is the simplest answer I can give you. We create many laws but few are being able to be implemented. It does not matter where you live on earth, there are laws in which the government are not implementing. They are just merely in books. It looks good in the books but they’re not being implemented. At the same time there are laws which are so aged, so old, so ineffective, but still they are in the books. And they’re not being implemented either. So I wonder do we need that many laws? Do we need to carry on the way we’ve been doing? I don’t know. What do you think? That we create laws internationally and there’s no one to implement them, when we cannot even implement the laws locally we have created. I wonder how we’re expecting that international law will be upheld when simple laws locally are not being implemented or followed. Can you help me answer the question? I hope so. I pray to the Great One it will be so. Thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: International law is today a [chivalette]. It’s something that we hear a lot about, but as this question points out, international law is applied very selectively in the world today. The United States is exempt from international law. Other powerful states are exempt from international law, whereas subjugated or weak states are subject to it. The reality is there is no effective international law in the world today. There is a law Might Makes Right, and that is the law of the world today, that is the kind of international law we have. The United States is able to carry out war crimes, violate Geneva conventions, torture, murder, invade other countries ,illegally and to violate numerous provisions of international law, and yet claim that it is a beacon of international law that is upholding and advancing international law. The United States at the same time, of course, rejects the world court and the international tribunal and rejects mechanisms that would bind it to international law. The United States is entering into bilateral relationships, agreements with states around the world to compel them to say that they will never bring US soldiers, that they will never US officials before courts of international law. We recently have seen other states, Argentina. In particular, we have the example of Chile and Augusto Pinochet dictatorship. We see universally a principle of trying to exempt executives, political leaders from any accountability. So, really, I think we need to question the basis of international law today and understand that it can’t possibly be meaningful in a world where the states have such power.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Well, it is not just about that because we cannot enforce some of the laws or we have not seen them being enforced that we think that there is no point in having international law because we have seen when something is wanted it is done. In the case of the World Trade Organization, the free markets laws, they are being implemented because the people who really want to implement them make sure that they are implemented. But at the same time, if we look at other things such as say freedom from hunger; now that is a right which is ensured through the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Right. It is a right which comes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And we have seen that even if they have not being enforced but people, social movements are using it to demand that right, whether it is the farmers’ movement which talks about freedom from hunger as being an international human right or we look at people and communities who are struggling to have access to water, they talk about water as a human right. And that has become an important enforcement mechanism because that is helping communities galvanize for the basic rights to come together and to start demanding justice, and I think that is very important and that’s how most of the human rights struggles have been won. So the fact we have it on paper, of course, we have to make sure it can only have change when it is enforced in the power of making it be applied or to be enforced lies within each one of us.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I find this question very interesting. Because the presumption of effective enforcement of international law is a model that we need some force to enforce the following of internation law. I’d like to back up a bit and just think about that question. Because I think it’s imperative that we recognize international-- I’d rather call it global law, global norms, global values-- that protect the sanctity of all human beings and human dignities and human freedoms across this planet, and other species as well, including the planet. We need, for example, The Earth Charter, is an attempt to formulate global norms and values and a kind of consciousness of planetary global consciousness that goes with The Earth Charter. That remind us that we are in a global world and sharing across all of our own borders, as beings sharing this planet. We absolutely need global norms and global values and global institutions and global law to remind us of that. And hopefully, when we are in the global consciousness, whence these laws come, you will not need forces to enforce and intervene, to have them be a living reality. So the purpose of the international global norms and laws and regulations across our border is absolutely imperative in this global age. Whether or not we have external mechanisms to enforce them. So,the presumption is that we can enforce them ourselves in self regulation, in self organization, in our local forms of life and local ecologies in which we live, rather than needing an intervention. Obviously though, in transition from the old cultural ways, the ego-based cultures to the cultures based upon awakened consciousness, there may be the need for strong intervention to bring about the shift from the old cultural way to a sustainable healthy culture that’s based on living these global norms and values that protect the sanctity of all life and the dignity of all human beings and all species and of Mother Earth.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: The implementation and enforcement of international laws pose a different issue than the actual creation and existence of the international law itself. The creation of the law is there to address, insure, and protect the rights of the underprivileged or what is individual or organizations or institutions or governments to be able to say that these rights are important, these rights need to be protected, these people need to have their rights be, be afforded rights and privileges. But the question of whether or not they are enforced and implemented is another question. So it is the case that we have many international laws that are not enforced, that are not implemented. To that extent, it can add to discouragement, but that does not mean that the laws themselves are not important or that the laws themselves should not be there. Today we have the International Criminal Court, it is seen as a hopeful sign towards the implementation as well as enforcement of international laws that deals with issues of human rights and human rights violators. So that is an important public international institution. We also have the World Court that addresses the issues confronting governments and making, making decisions regarding the rights of governments and on the international stage. So we do have enforcement institutions, institutions that seek to implement these laws. So, but that doesn't mean that we can't try to do better, that we should not also exercise more of our political will to ensure the implementation and enforcement of international laws. But we certainly do have a whole panoply of international law.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: Well, you can't claim that there is no mechanism for international law. First I have to say that there is a mechanism which isn't sufficient and somehow still restricted. That's right. But there are many more mechanisms than before. For example between the two world wars and definitely if you compare the situation today with the 19th century. So there are many more. There aren't only international committees but also sometimes international forces and there is the international court of justice. There is everything. The question is if that is sufficient. And it isn't sufficient. We have to develop and enlarge it. That doesn't mean what we have today is worthless and has no meaning, that only means that we haven't yet come far enough and that has something to do with development. And this development comes from the consciousness of people and from education. If the people get more and more international education and they become more and more democratic and they live the democratic values then such mechanisms will develop. That's how tribes, states and nations developed and that's how the international community develops. So it is a question of development. I think we are on the right way but it is a difficult and long way.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Public and international law. Effective enforcement mechanisms. What is the purpose of public and international law? The purpose will might be of ideas for the global community to come together, to come together in a forum, to come up with the ideas, to set some laws. But if there is no effective enforcement mechanisms to apply it, there is no way for these ideas to be turned into an action or refined, this pool of ideas that has a vision. If there’s no way to refine that vision into a conceptual format to come up with ways of implementation, timelines of implementations of phases, then it is like an eddy in the river. It’s moving but going nowhere. There needs to be a stone or something to dislodge this eddy, or an involvement of the people to come in to change the course, so that this eddy and the power that its built can spiral out into the world. And then all this energy and activity can then be dispersed and flow down the river.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas:

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: Large and powerful institutions will join new systems of law like international law only if they see a benefit in it. And if the U.S. sees itself as the sole superpower then it is not necessarily in its political interest, or it doesn’t perceive it in its political interest to join the international institutions, at least from one side of the aisle, then we would end up withdrawing from things like the International Criminal Court. I personally don’t find that to be in our best interest. But it’s a very effective political issue. So as long as we’re in a world where there’s a single superpower I think it will be difficult for that country to put itself in that system. China is rising. Will China submit to the international law system if it becomes the clear superpower in the world? Will it submit to the economic system? Perhaps there are more effective mechanisms economically to bring them in, but I don’t see any reason to believe that it would be any easier than getting the U.S. to do that. So our best chance if we want a more balanced adherence to international law will be to have a more balanced world where there is not a single power dominating.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: This is a legal question in front of which a literal stands in full ignorance. Understandably, to apply public international law effective enforcement mechanisms are needed. However what is in the justice system unjust and can a reasonable sense be found in the whole sphere of global busyness? It is difficult to answer this question positively and optimistic.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: I think the short answer to this is, is there’s very little purpose. I think, again, if people aren’t – if governments and particularly people at large are not obeying public international laws, and that is the case often, then enforcement has to be that stop point. We have many, many mechanisms in place. For example, the International Court of Justice. It’s a pity that many governments don’t agree with that or are trying to flout that and some of the most powerful governments are doing that. The governments and countries must abide by their agreements, especially when they are in conflict with their own economic, political and military agendas. So yeah, very little purpose. It has to be by agreement.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Catherine David: Thats a very deadpan and true question and conclusion at the same time. Its evident that international laws can become more complex or can be reformed to be more precisely, to become real laws. But I think the problem is not about the laws but about their application. So this is a very complicated problem as the law exists and as it can solve a lot of problems but at the same time their is a problem of application. And as there are problems of application, there are political problems and in this way problems of int he range of governments, problems of arbitrage and of decisions. And in this way we have to take a look on certain institutions like the UN which should enforce the international laws but they do not always function in the right way as the UN for example asks for the respect of sanctions to Hamas in a totally different way as it asks Israel for the respect of sanctions. And thats absolutely inacceptable and very dangerous. So I think the problem is not about the law itself as it would not be very difficult to reform , to rebuilt and to rewrite a certain number of laws. But the problem is that we can dispose of the best written and the most precisly laws and it is absolutely in vain as we are not able to applicate and to enforce them and thats above all a political problem.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: Of course we have UN. We have all their laws, but they're not implemented. I think it is time that we really mean what we say and I think we should equip UN so that they can manage these conflicts. For example, in Rwanda, because UN was not equipped enough, a million people were killed in the presence of UN because UN was overpowered. In Congo, for years a war had been going on. There is UN, but people are still dying every day. Then in northern Uganda, 20 years of war. UN can only speak and yet we have so much resources of those countries, of other countries, and nothing is done. People are more dying now than they did when UN didn't exist. People more dying, children are more suffering more than before. It is untold suffering and it have become our everyday life. We seem to have accepted this suffering. We seem to have seen so much of death that we have decided to live with it. It's like we have accepted the loss of human beings. And I think it's a shame that we still have UN, but it cannot do its job. I think the world's poor and rich should begin to make UN do the job it was assigned to do.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: It is deplorable that the United States of America torpedo the international courts of human rights more and more, the developments in Rome concerning the establishing of the court of human rights in Den Haag, as well. It is deplorable that the United Nations, even though they want to adjust their human rights commissions and policies of human rights and to make them more equitable in order to reduce the proportion of dictatorships that formerly, as Libya for instance, Cuba and China, have influenced the policy of human rights and have avoided the sanctions for the transgression of human rights. But as a matter of fact, we see that China has got massive economic interests, interests in oil, in resources in Africa and that China prevents the security council, the United Nations and democratic states from imposing sanctions against Sudan. China covers this and prevents this by its own policies of oil and resources, that is to say the policy of human rights is more and more at the mercy of economic "Realpolitik" and this displays that the changes and the reforms of the United Nations concerning their human rights policy do not show the success that they should have. However, this is not an argument for the United States to keep their distance, not to participate in the United Nations or in the court of human rights in Den Haag. Is is irresponsible and of course shows the idea of the American exceptionalism, in international politics as well, which is a menace to international politics. The European states show more responsibility in this regard, but it is clear that the policy of human rights is under the influence of economic interest and the policy of power and that the affected individual, especially in Africa and Asia, must suffer because of this. However, we must acknowledge that the court of human rights in Den Haag tries to exert influence in Yugoslavia, in Kosovo, in Darfur, to line up legal procedures and to punish the transgression of human rights. But so far the reform of the UN has not shown the success that would be desirable.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Cornel West: Well, certainly there must be a mechanism of enforcement for international law, but even if there’s not, the public international law reminds us of what the standards actually are and it serves as a basis upon which we can work to try to create more mechanisms of enforcement. Public international law is one of the most important forces in the world today if we are going to be able to somehow overcome very intense conflicts, be they economic, military, political. But, the issue of enforcement has so much to do with the balance of power and the balance of forces in the world today. And, of course, the UN has been too often used and manipulated by American elites, even given the presence of many many voices there, the 192 countries who constitute the body of that institution. But, we must never give up on the need for public international law even if we are living in a moment now where the United States has often times so flagrantly shunned any kind of multilateralism that has to do with acknowledging public international law, be it Geneva Convention, be it the United Nations itself, be it Kyoto treaties and so on and so forth. So that we should not in anyway be discouraged simply because the mechanisms of enforcing public international law are not as strong as they ought. And we’ve come a long way and I think that, in fact, we can even go further down the road if we could somehow bring some power and pressure to bear from below again; but that democratic globalization goes hand in hand with public international law, goes hand in hand with multilateral cooperation, hand in hand with nation states engaging in dialogue rather than coercion, engages in discussion rather than the use of violence.

by Cornel West