I guess if I thought about it, I could have figured it out. But in my first three weeks of International Law class, which I almost didn't take because I thought it would be remedial, I am actually learning a lot about the foundations and philosophies behind international law (thus it is more, right, up my alley). And the first three weeks has been all about consent -what it means, how to get it, how to give it, what can be done with or without (almost nothing) it.
I also thought sovereign just meant independent, but I guess a more legalese definition is "an entity that no other entity can make laws over." (Yes, I made that up myself, surmised from my readings.) So the argument goes that sovereign states, by their very definition, can't have other laws over them that are binding. So any type of international law has to come from consent. And for the most part, every state has to consent to be bound by any international laws.
But, there is growing consideration that in areas such as the environment, terrorism, etc., perhaps a larger cooperative body has emerged in the modern era. And so perhaps we are ready for a cataclysmic change where the sovereign is the international community. Of course, this brings a plethora of complications, ambiguities, you know metaphysical kind of stuff which is just where I belong.
And so at some point, I should read and comment on this article. But in the meantime, enjoy.
Nonconsensual International Lawmaking, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 71 (2008). I have it on file so email me if you want a copy.
No comments:
Post a Comment