Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:41:22 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

US invasion to get Libyan terrorists:

International law is like the bible - look hard enough and you can justify
anything.

Generally, under international law (and the constitution makes international
law the law of the land) the US does not have the authority to use force to
enter Libya and take possession of the terrorists.

Here is the detail.  Countries are divided on the question of 'can a country
use force to take a terrorists in internatioal waters.'  You see, terrorism
is considered to be a crime against humanity, like piracy.  And any nation
could take pirates on the high sea.  Some are also calling drug running a
crime against humanity.

This does not allow a country to violate the territory of another country to
further these goals.

Most countries believe that a state can use force against another state to
protect their own citizens from an emminet threat.  This is the rationale for
Entebbe, Ossarik, and our bombing of Libya.  A 'punative' action is not
allowed, but an action to destroy a base being used to train terrorists might
be.

You should also know that there are few absolutes in international law.  With
the advent of the developing world, the standards are changing drastically.

The US is not the great violaor of international law many think.  Neither are
they pure.  Usually, the US 'breaks' international law in response to another
country doing so.  This assumes that one can 'break' a law with poor
definition, no enforcement outside voluntary cooperation, and no real judge.

The world court is not the world judge that many think.  They were quite
correct that they had no authority to intercede in the UN action agsint
Libya.

In regard to Panama, the US had a number of legal bases for this action, none
of which was the plan to 'get' a drug pusher.  Our decision to arrest Noriega
and bring him to the US was done in the context of being a nation who had
been asked to interviene physically.  Basically, we didn't go there to get
him, but while we were there, we took him.

My qualm with the action is on one basis only: the foreign soverign immunity
act, which I think says that his drug activities were a part of Panamanian
policy against the US and so he was acting on behalf of his country.  I have
the same problem with the arrest of the two Libyan terrorists.  IF they were
acting on orders, THEN the state and not themy are responsibile (except for
war crimes and such, so the case to arrest them is even better than noriega).

Further, even if taking Noriega was wholly in violation of international law
(invading was legal, taking him to the US is shakey, finding him guilty of
the crimes I don't know about), I think we should have done it.  His presence
was athreat to US citizens, the canal, the international community, and the
freedom of the seas.

International law is not like national law.  Countries are soverigns, even
under international law.  One might better think of Int law a "rules" in a
"game" that are followed most of the time, but violated sometimes, and the
punishment for violating them depend on the rule, who violated it, and why.

So:  We can legally impose the sanctions that the UN has done.  We can
unilaterally seperate ourselves as far from them as we want (we still buy
their oil right now).  We can work in the UN to obtain Un sanctioned force to
go in and take the terrorists.

But, all this misses the issue, IMHO.  State sponsored terrorism is the real
issue and punishing Libya should be the real goal.

Finally, you should know that there is a growing move in international law to
assign responsibility at the individual level (see Filigarita v
Penn-something, a famous SC case)in human rights.  Traditionally,
international law is only between states and does not involve citizens.,

I would like to recmmend a short book, "Judging the World Court" by Tom
Frank.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU