Norway’s foreign minister argues that the strikes on Iran broke international law. Does this make any difference? Does this matter? Is it irrelevant?
Regarding international law, what can be proved is a narrow, testable proposition, such as that international law has no independent enforcement power and therefore cannot be treated as decisive evidence of what will happen or what a state must do absent aligned incentives or coercive power.
Below is how to prove that, using the following procedure.
1) Observe and isolate the facts
Concrete existents:
- States (U.S., China, etc.) with militaries, police, courts inside their borders.
- International institutions (UN, ICJ, ICC, WTO bodies).
- Treaties/charters (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, UNCLOS).
- Sanctions/force (trade sanctions, asset freezes, military action).
Key observable fact to start from: - There is no global sovereign with general police power over states comparable to a domestic government over citizens.
2) Define your terms and form the relevant concepts
You must prevent equivocation.
- Law (domestic): rules backed by an institution with (a) recognized authority, (b) courts, and (c) routine, centralized coercive enforcement (police/jails) over individuals in its jurisdiction.
- International law: rules states claim bind them (treaty law + customary law), interpreted/argued in diplomatic and judicial forums, but enforced mainly through state action (retaliation, sanctions, reciprocal compliance, reputation, and sometimes war), not a standing global police.
- Enforce: to reliably impose compliance via coercion when a subject refuses.
- Irrelevant (needs tightening): cannot be used as evidence for any conclusion? That’s too strong. Better: not independently action-guiding (i.e., doesn’t determine outcomes without power/incentives).
3) State a clear, testable proposition (tentative opinion)
A provable version:
P: International law, by itself, is not a decisive constraint on state action, because it lacks centralized coercive enforcement; therefore citing “international law says X” is not sufficient to establish that X will occur or that X is practically obligatory.
This is testable: we can check whether outcomes track legal claims absent enforcement/incentives.
4) Reduce the proposition to the perceptual level
What would we observe if is true?
- Frequent cases where a powerful state violates a rule and no consistent coercive enforcement follows.
- Compliance occurs mainly when:
- it aligns with state interest,
- retaliation is expected,
- or powerful actors can impose costs.
- Courts/institutions issue rulings that are ignored without a stronger party making noncompliance costly.
What would falsify ?
- A standing international authority that routinely coerces even great powers into compliance regardless of interest/power (a true global sovereign).
5) Gather all relevant evidence (positive and negative)
Relevant categories of evidence:
- Institutional design: UN has no world police; Security Council enforcement depends on major powers; veto blocks action.
- Behavioral record: states sometimes comply, sometimes don’t; pattern correlates with incentives and power.
- Mechanisms of “enforcement”: sanctions, countermeasures, reciprocal treaty suspension, reputational costs—these are not automatic and depend on other states choosing to act.
Negative instances (showing it’s not “irrelevant” in every sense):
- Many treaties are complied with because they coordinate mutually beneficial behavior (aviation, mail, shipping standards, trade procedures).
So the absolute thesis “irrelevant” fails; the enforcement-independence thesis remains viable.
6) Integrate the evidence by logic (identity, non-contradiction, causality)
- If “law” (in the robust domestic sense) implies a superior with final coercive authority, then by identity international law is different in kind: it is rules among sovereigns without a sovereign over them.
- Non-contradiction check: “international law binds states” can only mean “states have agreed and expect consequences from others,” not “a superior will compel them.”
- Therefore the practical force of international law is derivative: it reduces to power + incentives + coordination, not an autonomous authority.
7) Identify causal mechanisms (not correlation)
Mechanisms that make international law matter when it does:
- Reciprocity: “If you violate, we suspend our performance.”
- Retaliation/countermeasures: tariffs, seizures, diplomatic isolation.
- Coordination benefits: standardization lowers costs; compliance is rational.
- Reputation/credibility: affects alliances, investment, future bargains.
- Power projection: strong coalitions can impose costs.
Mechanism that makes it fail:
- When the violator is strong enough or the issue important enough, and others won’t/can’t impose costs, the rule becomes inert.
8) Compare alternatives and eliminate the impossible
Alternatives:
- International law functions like domestic law (central enforcer compels states).
- International law functions like a coordination/contracting system (works when incentives or power make compliance rational).
- International law is pure fiction (never influences behavior).
(1) contradicts the observed absence of a global coercive sovereign.
(3) contradicts obvious coordination/compliance cases.
So (2) remains: conditional relevance, not decisive authority.
9) Burden of proof
If someone argues: “X is wrong because international law says so,” they must show:
- which rule applies (definition and scope),
- and crucially what enforcement/incentive mechanism will make it operative.
If they cannot reduce it to any mechanism (who will impose what cost, under what conditions), the claim “therefore it can’t happen / therefore it’s settled” is floating—it has no action-guiding weight.
10) Grade evidential status
- The absolute claim “international law is irrelevant and should never be used” is refuted by counterexamples.
- The refined claim (no independent decisive constraint absent incentives/power) is probable to near-certain as a general principle, because it follows from the structural fact: no global sovereign with routine coercion over states.
11) Issue a judgment (truth-status decision)
Judgment:
- Dismiss the blanket statement “international law is irrelevant.”
- Accept (contextually) the stronger, defensible thesis:
International law is not self-enforcing and cannot be treated as dispositive in argument unless you also identify the concrete enforcement/incentive mechanism that will make compliance rational or compulsory.
12) Form a belief and act accordingly (keep context open)
How to use this in argument:
- Don’t say “international law is irrelevant.”
- Say: “International law is conditional: it matters only insofar as states with power or aligned interests will enforce it or comply with it. So citing it alone doesn’t settle the issue.”
A compact formulation you can use:
- “International law isn’t a trump card; without enforceable mechanisms, it’s a paper rule.”
No comments:
Post a Comment