- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Is that the first so called international tribunal ever held since the notion of such things was enacted after WW2 was in 1993. Certainly there were good enough reasons to hold one in the intervening 48 years. So obviously these things and the 'rule of law' behind them are more about politics than the notion of law, let alone justice. The idea that the 'law' itself can and should remediate these abuses sounds almost quaint, divorced from the political realities of who enforces them.
For example both the French and Chinese governments clearly articulate a posture that states that such international laws form the cornerstone of their own foreign policy. Law and NGOs and transnational bodies are diplomacy by other names, force even. So the basis that these laws are intended to benefit anyone other than the French or Chinese (to the French and Chinese) is mistaken. So what is this 'rule of law' then but politics by other means?
