International Law

US policy over the last 30 years or so has ceded the debate over the International system of Law to the international Left and the anti-American sentiment among many nation. Human rights resolutions at the UN are largely used as an anti-western tool, such as denunciations of Israel. UN practices are too ofen used to shield authoritarian states like Iran and North Korea as their labyrinthine nature cause them to be ineffective.

The UN is a body of largly equal nation-states with each state's adherance to respect for human rights or any limitations upon control over its people largley ignored. The US, because of its lack of interest in International Law, has dangerously ceded all of these legal points to its enemies on the world state. States such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe and a gaggle of other such violators of individual liberty have been shielded by a dome of International Law.

The US has abrogated its responsibilty to its interests to shape international law in a way that will explicitly protect individual rights and thereby implicitly serve US interests.Instead we see a headlong rush to furth "global governance" in an anti-Western direction based upon a nation-state system. The policies of centralized states have been allowed to promulgate on the international stage, shaping international law.

Paradoxically, the only way global government or even "global governance" will ever be acceptable, much less effective, is if it adopts a decentralized structure that is at the heart of the American idea of Federalism. Unforunately, this view of global government is largely antithetical to the ideas of those who advocate it, as it is centralization of power and not diversity of culture or interests that they seek. The victory of this view of centralized international law and government is a consequence of the American reatreat from the debate over the last 30 years.

"One World" may someday be possible and might be desirable. A one-government world, however, will by its nature be authoritarian if not totalitarian and will lead to more division and conflict in the world not less.