The Shift From Colonialism and The Evolution of Globalization: The State, The Private Sector, The Hegemon of Treaty

The connections of the current international system of globalization are a result of centuries of political, military, and economic evolution, and consolidation, which began with the state actor, or empires such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire. States, as main actors, have always conducted regional trade, as far as technology would allow reasonable trade boundaries, and that trade capability vastly expanded during the age of European colonialism and the trans-Atlantic slave trade as new technologies became available which expanded sea trade.

From the 1400s onward, states increased agendas of imperialism, often through colonialism. One example of this imperialism was during the height of the Holy Roman Empire when Portugal was awarded a trade monopoly on the West coast of Africa, via Papal Bull Dum Diversas, to supply Spanish colonies in the Caribbean with slave labor in which to exploit natural resources for trade. After the British Empire rose to new heights after breaking with the Holy Roman Empire over Protestantism, the British Empire took international exploitation and colonial trade to new levels of imperialism through territories such as North America and, the Jewel of the British crown, India. Even leading into World War I, the European states were conducting a colonial scramble in Africa.

We can actually see the 20th century evolution from state sponsored colonialism, in which the state burdened colonial expenses, toward private sector imperialism backed by collective state entities such as the League of Nations, and later the United Nations, when we look at the independence dates of post-colonial states, mostly known today by organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund as Lesser Developed Nations.

The following examples of independence dates for post-colonial British territories are just a few in order to illustrate the timeframe trend:

India in 1947, (which includes the partitioning and creation of Pakistan), Burma – 1948, Jamaica – 1962, Kenya 1963, Sierra Leone – 1961, Singapore 1959, Uganda – 1962, Trinidad – 1962, Kuwait – 1962, Barbados – 1966

At the conclusion of the First World War, the League of Nations was established, with internal structural errors, to provide the blueprint for globalization. Those internal structural errors were corrected after the Second World War by allowing the victorious states permanent Security Council status with veto capability. In the aftermath of World War II, the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) was established (which would eventually become the World Trade Organization).

“At the conclusion of World War II, twenty-three countries, led primarily by the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, negotiated the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade” [1]

The winners of World War II set the international structure for globalization and instantly began to allow their colonial possessions independence in order to bring them into the global economy via the GATT, World Bank (originally established as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for conditional loans to post-colonial and war-torn states), and the International Monetary Fund (which established international currency exchange rates). One interesting note about World Bank and IMF loans is that, in addition to containing conditional terms which opens up recipient states to foreign private sector investment, the loans are issued in the strongest currencies and required to be repaid through the weak currency of the loan recipient state.

Once the international global market was firmly established, the Cold World between the Capitalist U.S and the Communist Soviet Union (which bolstered incredible private sector profits in arms production) kept the international capital system from global expansion. Looking back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, you can see the World Bank issuing loans to former Soviet bloc states and the admittance of those newly “independent” states into the GATT/World Trade Organization.

The overall difference between international connections in the past and modern globalization is that prior to the World War I and II, individual states were the primary actors. In modern globalization, collective international organizations such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization maintain international systematic hegemony. Any state that does not assimilate into the global market can be punished by collective international (or, as the U.S. likes, unilateral) sanctions. The primary actor role shifted from the individual state to international private sector organizations that utilize the collective military hegemon of the most powerful states (linked by international treaties) to bring non-compliant states and states suffering from instability into capitalist market compliance (because foreign capital exploitation of natural resources is impossible under political instability).

[1] Brookings Institute. The WTO and GATT: A Principled History, p. 11. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/2009/selfenforcingtrade/selfenforcingtrade_chapter.pdf

Two states that share a connection under globalization: Jamaica and Barbados

Two states that are connected through the IMF and the international global economy are Jamaica and Barbados, both post-colonial possessions of the British Empire that were allowed independence in the 1960s. Both states currently hold debt to GDP ratios well above 100% and both states have been recipients of multiple IMF loans. Jamaica recently entered into a new agreement with the IMF; Barbados is currently being pressured to enter into an new agreement.

1. U.S. and World Report news report listing the top 10 states with the highest GDP to Debt ratios:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/28/the-10-countries-with-the-most-debt

2. 2009 Article from the Jamaican Gleaner on the threat of downgrading the Jamaican international credit rating if that state did not secure an additional IMF loan:

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090820/business/business1.html

3. IMF Press release on the latest 2013 IMF agreement forced on Jamaica:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr13150.htm

4. Barbados received “financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank” in 1990. Previously, loans were issued to Barbados in 1977 and 1982-83 (p.42). The following report by Dr. Andrew Downs provides a brief history.

http://www.lacea.org/WEB/country_studies/barbados.pdf

5. The last link is a November 2013 article in the Jamaican Gleaner on the pressures being placed on Barbados to accept, yet another, IMF agreement.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/extra/article.php?id=2552

Many pro-globalization positions will use Brazil and India and positive examples of globalization, but, it appears the economic inequality that usually accompanies capitalism is present in both states. 
In India, 10% of the population owns over 53% of domestic wealth while the bottom 80% battle of less than 30% (BBC News, 2007).  The following is from the same report: "About 35% of people live on less than US$1 a day. Poverty is at its worst in rural areas and is often accompanied by high levels of illiteracy and poor health.  Nationally, almost half of children suffer from malnourishment, although infant mortality rates have declined. Almost 60% of people in towns and 20% in rural areas do not have access to proper sanitation.  Despite such problems, India has seen overall poverty decline - a shift which has been accompanied by more general improvements to living standards."

In Brazil, the CIA World Factbook states that 21.4% of the population lives under the poverty level.  In addition to the CIA World Bank Factbook, I have listed a World Bank report below that show a "Gini coefficient of 0.59 in the distribution of household incomes per capita, Brazil has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the world: (p.11)

BBC News.  Key Facts: India Rising, January 22, 2007.  Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6257057.stm

CIA World Factbook.  Brazil.  Accessed from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html

World Bank.  Inequality and Economic Development in Brazil.  Accessed from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/10/05/000012009_20041005095126/Rendered/PDF/301140PAPER0Inequality0Brazil.pdf

Differences Between the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice, which began in 1946 after the formation of the collective hegemon of World War II victor-states in the form of the U.N. Security Council, is an official organ of the United Nations and the maintains 15 elected judges, elected by the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council, serving nine year terms.  Much younger than the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court is an independent international court based off the Rome Statute which began operations in 2002.  The International Court of Justice handles cases of member states in areas focusing on sovereignty, trade, natural resources, treaty violations, and treaty interpretations while the International Criminal Court was established to try cases concerning crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.  Looking at these categories of crime, the following definitions apply:

Genocide – destroying, completely or in partial, a group under the category of national, ethnical, racial and religious group.

Crimes against Humanity – which would consist of murder, extermination, enslavement torture, rape, sexual pregnancy, mass sterilization, apartheid, and other inhumane acts

War Crimes – Breeching the Geneva Convention in areas of mutilation, attacking civilian populations, attacking religious, medical or educations structures, and recruiting children under the age of 15 into armed groups participating in hostilities.

Aggression – Invasion, occupation, annexation by force, or naval blockades.

Since the area of jurisdiction of Aggression is new jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court, it will not be an area of jurisdiction available under the International Criminal Court until 2017.

Member states of the United Nations are automatically members of the International Criminal Court while states must be individually admitted under the International Court of Justice.  While the International Criminal Court will issue criminal prosecutions, the International Court of Justice holds more weight due to the possibility of UN Security Council enforcement of those judgments.  One area that should be noted that the United States, China, India and Israel never ratified the Rome Statue and therefore never became members of the International Criminal Court.  After all, the bulk of these decisions will be economic in nature.  The historical development of today’s International Court of Justice has evolved out of The Hague Peace Conferences and the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the Permanent Court of International Justice.

It should also be identified that the International Criminal Court is focused on prosecutions of individuals while the International Court of Justice is aimed toward cases involving actual states.  Considering individual International Criminal Court jurisdiction, the International Criminal Court is not authorized to try children under the age of 18.

International Court of Justice, History of the Court, http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=1#origins

International Criminal Court, About the Court, http://www.icc-cpi.int/EN_Menus/ICC/Pages/default.aspx

Warsaw Uprising, Capital Democracy vs. Communism, Allied Support of Opposition, and Stalin

Prior to World War II, “there were three million Jews in Poland.  Three to four hundred thousand lived in Warsaw” [1].  After five years of Nazi military occupation in Warsaw, opposition forces in the form of the Polish Resistance Army planned an organized uprising against occupying forces and had received promises for assistance from the Allied forces: Stalin’s Red Army, Great Britain, and the United States. 

One of the friction points among the Allied Forces and Polish resistance forces could be found in the opposite forms of government represented between capital democracy and Soviet communism.  While Germany was the main enemy to the USSR and the Capitalist-democratic forces of the West, resulting in all Allied parties involved making promises of support to the Polish opposition forces, a sub-level concern for the Polish opposition (and also a concern for the U.S. and Britain) was the possibility that the Soviets would institute a communist government over areas of Poland if they were able to force Germany out of Warsaw.  After all, the democratic Polish government had, for the most part, taken exile in Britain and pro-democratic.

As the Red army approached Warsaw at the beginning of August of 1944, the Germans launched a fierce counter-attack with reinforcements, and several ground units within the Soviet military advance had their orders modified to move in a different direction or to halt advancement into Warsaw altogether.  This reluctance in pursuing an all-out assault on German forces occupying Warsaw is debated by historians, with one of the main arguing theories being that the Warsaw insurgents supported an anti-Soviet exiled government and Stalin may have wanted that faction destroyed.

In the historical documentations below, we can see the coordinating efforts of the allied forces, similar to Western support for opposition uprisings in Syria and Egypt today, in attempting to arm the Warsaw Uprising.

Message dated August 4, 1944 from Winston Churchill to Stalin:

“At urgent request of Polish Underground Army we are dropping, subject to weather, about sixty tons of equipment and ammunition into the southwest quarter of Warsaw, where it is said a Polish revolt against the Germans is in fierce struggle. They also say that they appeal for Russian aid, which seems to be very near. They are being attacked by one and a half German divisions. This may be of help to your operation.” [2]

Message dated August 15, 1944 from Soviet Foreign Affairs Commissar to U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, William Harrison Standley in Moscow:

“The Soviet Government cannot of course object to English or American aircraft dropping arms in the region of Warsaw, since this is an American and British affair. But they decidedly object to American or British aircraft, after dropping arms in the region of Warsaw, landing on Soviet territory, since the Soviet Government do not wish to associate themselves either directly or indirectly with the adventure in Warsaw.” [3]

The correspondence to the U.S. Ambassador shows Stalin’s refusal to allow U.S. or British supply planes to land (and refuel) in Soviet territory.

Message dated August 16, 1944 from Stalin to Winston Churchill:

“After the conversation with M. Mikolajczyk I gave orders that the command of the Red Army should drop arms intensively in the Warsaw sector. A parachutist liaison officer was also dropped, who, according to the report of the command, did not reach his objective as he was killed by the Germans.  Further, having familiarized myself more closely with the Warsaw affair, I am convinced that the Warsaw action represents a reckless and terrible adventure which is costing the population large sacrifices. This would not have been if the Soviet command had been informed before the beginning of the Warsaw action and if the Poles had maintained contact with it.” [4]

The message from Stalin basically shows his abandonment of support to the Warsaw uprising.

[1]  Dale, Jon.  The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, 1943.  Socialism Today, Issue 75, June 2003.  Accessed from http://www.socialismtoday.org/75/warsaw43.html

[2]  Churchill, Winston.  Letter to Stalin Dated August 4, 1944, Public Domain.  Accessed from http://www.warsawuprising.com/doc/Roosevelt_Churchill_Stalin.htm

[3]  Vyshinsky, Andrey.  Letter to Ambassador Harrison Dated August 15, 1944.  Public Domain.  Accessed from http://www.warsawuprising.com/doc/Roosevelt_Churchill_Stalin.htm

[4]  Stalin, Josef.  Letter to Winston Churchill Dated August 16, 1944.  Public Domain.  Accessed from http://www.warsawuprising.com/doc/Roosevelt_Churchill_Stalin.htm

International Law - Waterboarding and Torture

According to the website Waterboarding.org, waterboarding is defined as “The head is tilted back and water is poured into the upturned mouth or nose. Eventually the subject cannot exhale more air or cough out more water, the lungs are collapsed, and the sinuses and trachea are filled with water. The subject is drowned from the inside, filling with water from the head down. The chest and lungs are kept higher than the head so that coughing draws water up and into the lungs while avoiding total suffocation.” [1].

Before we even consider the UN Convention against Torture and U.S. obligations within, there are several other areas of international law concerning this issue that must be considered.

Geneva Convention IV:

In the Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the United States is a party of, prohibits “all forms of torture, whether they form part of penal procedure or are quasi- or extra-judicial acts, and whatever the means employed” [2]. The questionable terminology here seems to deal with ‘civilian persons’ and the ability to determine between a civilian and an enemy combatant, similar to the terminology of recognized statehood.

Rome Statute:

The United States is also a member of the international Criminal Court under the Rome Statute, which states in Article 7 that torture, defined in the statute as “the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions”, is considered a crime against humanity [3]. The United States (and Israel) signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it. Among states not signing or ratifying are China, Indonesia, and India, which illustrates that invalidity of the International Criminal Court since the United States, Israel, nor China are bound to jurisdiction.

United Nations Convention against Torture:

Article 31 is the first article that grabs attention in the UN Convention against Torture because it allows a state party to denunciate the “Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations” and that “denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General” [4]. The Convention itself defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” [5]. Article 31 allows a legal exit strategy for party states and only binds party states to “any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective” [6]. It should be noted though that denunciation only becomes effective “one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General” [6].

In the Chilean case, “The government headed by General Pinochet came to power in 1973 through a military coup d’état that removed the elected government headed by Dr. Salvado Allende”[7]. After the Chilean government transferred back to “civilian rule in 1990, Pinochet negotiated an amnesty with the new government”[8]. In 1998, while in Great Britain for medical treatment, Pinochet was detained by the British government under an extradition request from Spain. This extradition was dismissed due to “(1) the original request failed because the offenses did not meet the test of double criminality; and (2) as head of state, Pinochet enjoyed immunity from prosecution of the acts he may have committed” [9].

What are the differences between the Pinochet case and the Bush authorizations? 1) Chili was a lesser developed post-colonial state instead of an economically and militarily powerful state with a UN veto 2) The United Nations Convention against Torture had not occurred 3) Bush was never charged by the domestic courts (due to the consolidated domestic capital and economic power) the U.S. courts or a foreign state while Pinochet had already received amnesty from the transition government he relinquished power to, 4) The U.S. never ratified the Rome Statute, so how can it fall under the International Criminal Court jurisdiction?, and 5) International law is hypocritical, based on capital, and is only tangible to post-colonial or lower economic states who are forced to abide by it.

[1] “What Waterboarding Is,”Waterboarding.org, accessed August 8, 2013, http://waterboarding.org/info

[2] Geneva Convention IV, Article 32, August 12, 1949, 75 UNTS 287, http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/6deaa63f03bf9d75c12563cd0042bc22

[3] UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 7, 17 July 1998, http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm

[4] UN Convention Against Torture, Article 31, December 10, 1984, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm

[5] UN Convention Against Torture, Article 1, December 10, 1984, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm

[6] UN Convention Against Torture, Article 31, December 10, 1984, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm

[7] Gerhard von Glahn & James Larry Taubee, Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law p. 463 (9th ed. 2010)

[8] Gerhard von Glahn & James Larry Taubee, Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law p. 464 (9th ed. 2010)

[9] Gerhard von Glahn & James Larry Taubee, Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law p. 464 (9th ed. 2010)

Jurisdiction (Laws) of the Sea, UNCLOS, Private Sector Capital, and Oil

According to the Central Intelligence Agency website, the definitions concerning maritime claims are as follows:

“territorial sea - the sovereignty of a coastal state extends beyond its land territory and internal waters to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea in the UNCLOS (Part II); this sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as its underlying seabed and subsoil; every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles” [1]

“contiguous zone - according to the UNCLOS (Article 33), this is a zone contiguous to a coastal state's territorial sea, over which it may exercise the control necessary to: prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea; the contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured (e.g., the US has claimed a 12-nautical mile contiguous zone in addition to its 12-nautical mile territorial sea” [2]

“exclusive economic zone (EEZ) - the UNCLOS (Part V) defines the EEZ as a zone beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea in which a coastal state has: sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents, and winds” [3]

When it comes to the validity of the United States and the various international claims, it is hard to justify or deny either side of an international law argument because international law, even if it does exist on paper, is completely controlled and distorted by private capital and the UN Security Council.  When it boils down to territorial claims, “Oil and fish are at the root of any number of disputes that involve the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone” [4].  I would assume (with great confidence) that 99.9% of all disputes are economic in nature.   Remember, these international waters once were waterways for the transatlantic slave trade.

The original United Nations Convention on Laws of the Sea occurred in 1956, and created four treaties: Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, Convention on the Continental Shelf, Convention on the High Seas, Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas.

We know that the U.S. “proclaimed a 200-nautical-mile EEZ in 1983”, but this included “Hawaii and Puerto Rico as well as the continental United States” [5].  The U.S. was already under the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea from 1958, and due to opposition in the U.S. Senate against ratifying the treaty; the U.S. simply recognized the convention as customary law.  It is also noteworthy to point out that Israel has also not signed the treaty.

I pulled up the UN page with the full text of the original United Nations Convention on the Law and Sea, and the articles of the convention that I browsed over were exactly what I would expect from the United Nations.  Interesting enough, the third UNCLOS was conducted “shortly after the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The subsequent oil embargo and skyrocketing of prices only helped to heighten concern over control of offshore oil reserves. Already, significant amounts of oil were coming from offshore facilities: 376 million of the 483 million tons produced in the Middle East in 1973; 431 million barrels a day in Nigeria, 141 million barrels in Malaysia, 246 million barrels in Indonesia. And all of this with barely 2 per cent of the continental shelf explored” [6].

I think that it is evident what these so-called laws of the sea and UNCLOS are all about, especially the 1982 adoption of Part 5, Article 55 which expanded the exclusive economic zone during the oil boom of the 1980s.  It was, and still is, about oil and economics.  I still do not see an international law system; I see an international hegemon controlled by private sector capital (aka globalization).

In closing, I found a full text from a Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs 2012 hearing discussing UNCLOS.  If any of you have some free time, I would suggest browsing over it or watching the video I am going to post the link for.  During this hearing, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even mentions the potential for future outer space resources possibly being considered under UNCLOS (approximately the 38 minute mark of the video).  After all, if you read the definitions contained in the UNCLOS treaty…it does mention ‘air space’.  And we know how those legal loop holes are in international law, don’t we?  

 Here are two interesting quotes I found form the 2012 Senate hearing that clearly show the truth of the matter from a U.S. perspective:

“These businesses have made the business decision to buy multimillion dollar leases from the U.S. Government to go out on an Extended Continental Shelf, regardless that we are not a party to this treaty and whatever international  certainty that comes along with it” – Mr. Steven Groves (Heritage Foundation)

“Joining UNCLOS would affect our sovereignty and national interests in several ways.  It would expose the United States to adverse judgments from international tribunals from which there are no appeals.  It would obligate the United States to make an open-ended commitment to transfer an incalculable amount of royalty revenue to an international organization for redistribution to the developing world.  And it would require the United States to seek permission to mine the deep seabed from a council of foreign countries that includes Sudan” – Mr. Steven Groves

Below are the links to the full text of the Senate hearings and a video link I also found:

Full text link:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg77375/html/CHRG-112shrg77375.htm

Link with video of hearings (Guess what I will be watching going to bed tonight):

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/the-law-of-the-sea-convention-treaty-doc-103-39-pm

Notes:

[1]  Maritime Claims.  Central Intelligence Agency (August 1, 2013 16:23), https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2106.html

[2] Maritime Claims.  Central Intelligence Agency (August 1, 2013 16:23), https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2106.html

[3] Maritime Claims.  Central Intelligence Agency (August 1, 2013 16:23), https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2106.html

[4] Gerhard von Glahn & James Larry Taubee, Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law p. 319 (9th ed. 2010)

[5] Gerhard von Glahn & James Larry Taubee, Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law p. 319 (9th ed. 2010)

[6] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Historical Perspective.  United Nations: Dividion for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea.  (August 1, 2013 17:56), http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm#HistoricalPerspective

International Law - Jurisdiction Debate: 1996 Saudi Truck Bombing on U.S. Military Barracks

"On June 21, 2001, a federal grand jury in the United States indicted 13 Saudi Arabian nationals and one Lebanese national in connection with the truck bombing that killed 19 members of the American military services and wounded nearly 400 others in an apartment building in Saudi Arabia in 1996.  The building was being used as a barracks for U.S. military service personnel.  The bombing allegedly was pursuant to an organized terrorist agenda designed to drive Americans out of the Persian Gulf region." - Frederic L. Kirgis (American Society of International Law)

The Saudi Government denied U.S requests (or demands) for extradition of the 13 Saudi nationals to U.S. jurisdiction after the U.S. federal grand jury indictment.

How do you view this issue of international jurisdiction?  This is an open conversation on international law.

In the case of the Saudi Arabian Truck Bombing, it appears to me, when I remove all national bias, that the Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia was correct in his assertion that the jurisdiction falls under the legality of Saudi Arabia and not the United States.  Using the World Court (or Permanent Court of International Justice) ruling in S.S. Lotus ruling to support the Saudi position, the World Court decision stated that “Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that – failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary – it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention” [1].  It would also seem plausible to support the Saudi position with the Act of State Doctrine as a supplement to the argument based on the Lotus case.  In Underhill v. Hernandez, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Melville Fuller wrote that “Every sovereign state is bound to the respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory” [2].   In addition, we can call attention to Supreme Court decision on Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, even though it is corporate-commercial in nature, as the decision ruled that “the judicial branch would not examine the validity of an act of expropriation within its own territory by a foreign government” [3].  The only difference between the Sabbatino ruling and the Saudi position is the difference between states and individuals.  

It is interesting that if one of the suspects would have held American nationality, that the United States would have had an argument for jurisdiction.  Unfortunately, this argument does not hold true in the case of American victims on foreign soil even though the United States attempted to argue jurisdiction based on Universal Jurisdiction which is “generally recognized for such acts as piracy, slave trade, genocide, attacks on civil aircraft and war crimes, but it has not been quite as widely accepted for acts of terrorism”[4].  Based on the military presence and nationality of the victims, The United States could possibly argue concurrent jurisdiction which is defined as “jurisdiction over persons or things having connections with other states where the exercise of such jurisdiction is unreasonable”, but it does not seem unreasonable that Saudi Arabia claim territorial jurisdiction for a murderous act committed in its territory.  How do you think the United States would react if Saudi Arabia wanted to investigate 9-11?  The United States position seems reach for grey areas and doesn’t receive much assistance from the definitions of the three main concepts of jurisdiction as “"Prescriptive jurisdiction" is defined as the application of a state's law to the activities, relations, or status of persons again, whether by the legislative, executive, or judicial branch. "Adjudicative jurisdiction" is the authority to subject persons or things to the process of a state's courts or proceedings, and "enforcement jurisdiction" is the authority to compel compliance or punish noncompliance with the laws of a state” [5].

I hold the opinion that territorial jurisdiction is nine-tenths of the law and I hold the opinion that Saudi Arabia is justified in refusing joint jurisdiction or extradition.

[1] S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, No. 10, at p. 18 (1927), http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1927.09.07_lotus.htm

[2] Gerhard von Glahn & James Larry Taubee, Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law p. 201(9^th ed. 2010)

[3] Gerhard von Glahn & James Larry Taubee, Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law p. 201(9th ed. 2010)

[4] Frederic L. Kirgis, Indictments Regarding the Bombing of U.S. Quarters in Saudi Arabia, American Society of International Law(July 28, 11:01 am), http://www.asil.org/insigh74.cfm#_ednref3

[5]Kathleen Hixson, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Under the Third Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, 12 Fordham International Law Journal, 131 (1988),  http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&context=ilj

 

Lessons of Imperialism: Points, Versailles, and the Failure of the League of Nations

The causes of World War I were imperialistic in nature and the results of this conflict were not satisfied with Treaty of Versailles.  Many of the imperialistic capitalist state, and private sector, goals were botched by post-World War I international structural errors and many of the achieved goals did not reach the possible maximum levels of capital profitability.  These shortcomings would not be corrected and achieved until after World War II.  

Imperialism and World War I

World War I was started by the imperial motives of Britain, France and pre-October Revolution Russia, forming the Triple Entente, to hinder, and destroy, the economic-industrial growth and growing military power of Germany in Europe.  As with most major international conflicts, the spark that started the regional fighting was centered on smaller state pieces; in the case of World War I those pieces were the states of Serbia and Austria-Hungary.  Allied forces, supported by the geographically isolated United States and the capitalist private sector that influence her interests, quickly implemented a naval blockade around Germany in order to strangulate German supply lines.  Despite the creativeness of the German Schlieffen Plan, a plan for rapidly striking France to the East before quickly realigning German forces to the western frontier against a slower Russian military, World War I should have been a quick win for the Allied states, and the United States should have never been required to physical action.  The unforeseen event that prolonged the conflict and required entry by the United States was the Russian Revolution of 1917 which “began on 24 October, the eve of the meeting of the Second Congress of Soviets, when the forces of the Soviet’s Military-Revolutionary Committee began to occupy key government institutions” and “encountered almost no violent resistance”[1].  With the withdrawal of Russia, who would be troubled by domestic political struggles after the revolution, and the entry of United States military and capital power, the World War I conflict was extended in duration even though Germany’s days were numbered.

Points, Paris, and Treaties

On January 8, 1918, United States President Woodrow Wilson gave his famous Fourteen Points speech where he outlined conditions for possible peace and justified American entry into the conflict based on the empty concern “that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace­loving nation”[2].  What Wilson probably meant was that “after the United States came into the war her financial assistance was lavish and unstinted, and without this assistance the Allies could never have won the war”[3].  In short, the United States had private sector interests in Europe, and saw greater possible private sector interests in the war-ravished continent of Europe.

 Approximately ten months after the Fourteen Points speech, Germany signed the proposed peace armistice on November 11, 1918 and four years of conflict ended with wet blood still drying in the trenches of the front lines.  Within two months after the cessation of war, the Allied powers, known in history books as the ‘big four’, met at the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles with many other smaller state participants to establish terms for post-war peace.  Even though “Russia had fought as one of the Allies until December 1917, when its new Bolshevik Government withdrew from the war”, the Allied states did not “recognize the new Bolshevik Government and thus did not invite its representatives to the Peace Conference”[4].  With the late war entry of the United States, the United States “was not bound to honor pre-existing agreements between the Allied powers” and President Wilson “strongly opposed many of these arrangements” to include promises made to Italy in the 1915 Treaty of London[5].  The Treaty of Versailles was presented to Germany for signature on June 28, 1919.

Reparation Committee and the League of Nations

Two major creations emerged from the Treaty of Versailles.  The first was the Reparations Committee implemented to oversee Germany’s reparation commitments and abilities, which many political economists felt too harsh, damaging to Europe as a whole, and economically impossible.  The Reparation Commission contained “delegates of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy” in all areas concerning German reparation capabilities and decisions with “diplomatic privileges, and its salaries” paid by Germany[6].  German reparations would later be postponed until after World War II through the Lausanne Conference in 1932.

The second creation that was adopted at the Paris Peace Conference was the League of Nations, an attempt at global governance and international democracy.  The League of Nations was built on faulty wiring from the beginning of its existence.  The first problem that weakened the League of Nations was that the United States never ratified the treaty to join the League.  Despite the fact that “American public opinion was overwhelming in favor of ratifying the treaty, including the Covenant of the League of Nations”, U.S. Senate opposition argued that Article 10 “ceded the war powers of the U.S. Government to the League’s Council”[7].  The second, and more problematic, issue in the structure of the League of Nations was the requirement that decisions could only be obtained by unanimous vote.  Unanimous vote, the equivalent of equal veto power, greatly illustrated the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations as an international organization because various state alliances existed within the League of Nations which created an environment as if there were no international body in place at all.

Imperial Lessons

The lessons learned from World War I were many, but there were two very important lessons for imperial capital powers, especially in the private sector.  The first lesson was that the United States and the capitalist private sector realized new levels of profitability during the four-year World War I conflict through inter-allied debt accumulated with compound interest, as well as the profitable accumulation of post-war reconstruction loans. This realization would eventually lead to the post-World War II Bretton Woods creations which would end colonial imperialism and begin globalization.  The second realized lesson was the flaw of equality in any international organization established to maintain international peace and, more important to post-colonial private sector interests, stability.  Conflict and reconstruction were profitable opportunities for the private sector, but instability caused problems for the exportation and exploitation of natural resources from post-colonial states.  The private sector required an international government body controlled by a only handful of the strongest military states in order to pick and choose their profit opportunities whether in the format of stability or conflict.  This adjustment would also be corrected after World War II with the establishment of the United Nations Security Council permanent member veto.          

Notes

[1]  Fitzpatrick, Sheila.  2008.  The Russian Revolution, 3rd ed.  New York: Oxford Universtity Press, p. 64.

[2]  Wilson, Woodrow.  Janruary 8, 1918.  Fourteen Points Speech.  Public Domain.  Accessed from the Fordham Univeristy Website on July 21, 2013, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1918wilson.html

[3]  Keynes, John Maynard.  1920.  The Economic Consequences of the Peace.  Public Domain.  P. 298.

[4]  United States Office of the Historian.  The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/ParisPeace

[5]  United States Office of the Historian.  The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/ParisPeace

[6]  Keynes, John Maynard.  1920.  The Economic Consequences of the Peace.  Public Domain.  P. 251.

[7]  United States Office of the Historian.  The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/ParisPeace