Oh man.

The invasion of Iraq did violate the U.N. Charter, but it also removed one of the world's worst international lawbreakers and vindicated the U.N. sanctions regime that Iraq had disregarded.

I could make myself keep reading. But is it advisable?

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?

The invasion of Iraq did violate the U.N. Charter, but it also removed one of the world's worst international lawbreakers and vindicated the U.N. sanctions regime that Iraq had disregarded

The Professor apparently buys lipstick by the container load and applies it with a shovel.

Meanwhile, Europeans have played hardball when it has suited them. On international trade, the European Union has taken positions in a range of disputes involving genetically modified organisms, beef hormones, and bananas that have placed it in violation of international trade law or nearly so. Most EU countries are on track to violate their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. European enthusiasm for the ICC remains high, but major European countries -- unlike the United States -- have been reluctant to give the ICC free rein in Sudan.

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.

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.

As for the Sudan, why not support military intervention and the criminal court?

Since when is military intervention on the table? I'm pretty sure all NATO countries agree that that can't be done...