International Law and Organization: Weighing the Democracy Deficit

Résumé du document

The history of the relationship between the United States and international law and organization has always been a love-hate one. While historically the U.S. has unquestionably been one of the strongest proponents of the development of international organizations such as the United Nations (Rubenfeld, p.22), it appears that as soon as these organizations start to take a life of their own, especially when they develop more binding international law mechanisms, discontent grows in the United States, criticizing various aspects of the international system. As the world currently moves towards growing multilateralism, especially in a regional context, and as international law seeps slowly but surely into the daily relations between States and even between individuals, the United States is often seen, accurately or not, as the most reluctant player in the global game, maybe also because American critics are the most vocal in their opposition to new trends in international regulatory systems.

Extraits

[...] International law and State sovereignty are not mutually exclusive; rather they are dependent on one another. International organizations have been developed in such a way that “cooperation is [their] main pillar, because no country can unilaterally impose its diktat on the others” (Dupuy p.23). If some international organizations actually derogate to this principle, it is always to the benefit of the United States and most of its Western Allies (veto power in the U.N. Security Council for example). Unsurprisingly, the U.S. [...]

[...] As the world currently moves towards growing multilateralism, especially in a regional context, and as international law seeps slowly but surely in the daily relations between States and even between individuals, the United States is often seen accurately or not as the most reluctant player in the global game, maybe also because American critics are the most vocal in their opposition to new trends in international regulatory systems. Current international law and organizations are often characterized as being undemocratic, and in some instances, un-American. The present essay will provide an overview of the main arguments used to this effect and analyze their validity in view of the major trends in the development of international law and organization since the end of the Cold War. The lack of democracy in international law and organization is the most frequent argument used by their opponents: they argue that U.S. [...]

[...] The mere fact of seeking this support is the sign that there is some legitimacy in international laws and organizations, maybe not legally, but perhaps morally and politically (Bolton, p.5). This allows the U.S. to retain a certain breathing space, and to decide on a case by case basis whether its interests are best served by a unilateral or a multilateral action (“selective engagement”, class lecture). International law and organizations have enjoyed greater recognition and more extensive scope and power after the end of the Cold War, and we are currently moving towards an era of stronger international regulatory mechanisms as the global level. [...]

[...] It is interesting to point out that despite their relative wariness regarding international law and organizations when it affects directly the presumed national interest, all recent U.S. Administrations, regardless of their political color, have constantly invoked international law and resorted to international organizations in many different foreign affairs issues (class discussion). In his latest address to the U.N. General Assembly, George Bush has cited the UDHR to support the decision of his Administration to go to war in Iraq (Address by HE GWB, 19/09/06). [...]

[...] These concerns are based on tangible developments in international law in the post Cold War era (Rome Treaty creating the ICC, development of the universal jurisdiction principle, interference in other States' internal affairs for humanitarian purposes ) that can directly affect citizens of a country not party to an international agreement. In this case, it is legitimate to say that international law is indeed undemocratic because it applies to States and individuals who haven't formally agreed to it and don't have any control on it. The traditional conception of a State's prior consent to international law is fading away, and the concept of national sovereignty appears weaker than ever before. [...]