At the invitation of the Foreign Policy blog, I wrote some brief comments on the differences between Obama and Bush’s approaches to international law. If you’re curious, go here.
At the invitation of the Foreign Policy blog, I wrote some brief comments on the differences between Obama and Bush’s approaches to international law. If you’re curious, go here.
Steve says:
Oh man.
I could make myself keep reading. But is it advisable?
September 22, 2009, 9:44 pmcheap supra shoes says:
Hi! I like your srticle and I would like very much to read some more information on this issue. Will you post some more?
September 22, 2009, 10:11 pmAs we know , we can find lots of fans ,lots of store have been open worldwide.
Kenneth Anderson says:
Eric, I had been meaning to post this link and then got distracted – terrific piece! How would you suggest that either/or the UN GA meetings this week or the G20 summit play out against your model?
September 22, 2009, 10:14 pmone of many says:
I could have sworn the question of whether or not 1441 authorized the invasion was still an open one. Could you point me to the decision that 1441 didn’t cover the invasion?
A quibble, “Europeans Care More About International Law Than Americans Do”, is shibboleth the word you want to use to describe this? While the idea is more common in Europe than the US it is still common enough in the US that it doesn’t distinguish the two groups.
Sorry if sounds snarky, I’ve been reading a lot of snark today and my internal filters are out of calibration. No actual problems with the piece, which I think is an excellent overview of reality versus image, just those 2 which are completely peripheral to the thesis of the piece.
September 22, 2009, 10:43 pmArthurKirkland says:
The Professor apparently buys lipstick by the container load and applies it with a shovel.
September 22, 2009, 10:44 pmSteve says:
Seriously, I was perfectly open to the idea that Obama isn’t going to materially shift the paradigm of mainstream American foreign policy – he’s hardly setting up a Department of Peace, after all – but if you have to toss off a casual whopper like that one to set up the argument, it’s sort of credibility-destroying. Heck, by the same logic the propriety of a decapitating strike against Israel would be subject to reasonable debate.
September 22, 2009, 11:39 pmMac says:
Well, the Europeans have the best of both worlds. They sign climate change treaties so they feel good about themselves and then ignore them. They want human rights treaties, but love to travel to and enjoy themselves in some of the worst countries for human rights violations such as Dubai. But, they signed the treaty, so no problem.
As for the Sudan, why not support military intervention and the criminal court? If anything gets done, it will be the US doing it, at least while there is any shooting to be done. No skin off their noses.
It is a perfect world for them and long as the US does all the dirty work such as delivering the leaders of the Sudan to them (they wish) as we did with Melosevic in Serbia and as long as we continue to provide for their defense.
What a deal. And, they can continue to do nothing but sign treaties, make themselves obnoxious in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere and look down their noses at us. Good work if you can get it.
September 23, 2009, 12:23 amzywotkowitz says:
Is the ICC really a “court”?
Don’t they say explicitly that they take political considerations into account rather than apply law “blindly”?
September 23, 2009, 2:58 amJames Gibson says:
I want to thank Mr. Posner for his article in Foreign Policy Blog. Not because the article was very insightful, because I was ware of most of these point for quite awhile. It generally goes down to the Political statements that Bush tore up the Constitution and Obama will bring it back, therefore Bush also thumbed his nose at International Law and Obama will be different.
But its too early to judge how Obama will be with International Law since we don’t know what is to come in the form of Foreign crisis. Bush had eight years in office, and the worst attack on US soil with it, and the majority of the accusations made against him are being shown to be more political then factual.
To some here, any deviation from their understanding of the law is unacceptable and a grievous sin and we as America must set a higher standard. But we have done the moral high ground on many issues and to what ends: only to see our good intentions thrown back into our faces and our people killed.
As for Obama, in just eight months in office he has violated the trade laws with the Tariff. Will this be the only case or just the start of others, who is to say. But I will predict that for some time to come, those who were very quick to shout criminal and point at Bush will be mute with their hands behind their backs regarding Obama’s actions.
September 23, 2009, 4:48 ammartinned says:
Cite?
September 23, 2009, 8:35 ammartinned says:
Since when is military intervention on the table? I’m pretty sure all NATO countries agree that that can’t be done…
September 23, 2009, 8:36 amMac says:
Well, there are a lot of people who make and made a lot of noise that our military must go into the Sudan. Think Hollywood and various other like-minded folks with a microphone. There was a lot of criticism of Bush, as I recall, because he didn’t send in the Marines. I suppose they may have forgotten our lovely experience in Somalia.
September 23, 2009, 5:11 pmMyrtle Beach Attorney says:
If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web
December 2, 2009, 10:57 pm