|
It's not that simple, Thoran. In fact, let's look to commerce. The only place there has been a real concession of sovereignty is at the WTO. While environmental harms and killing people only merit an ICJ or ICC claim, where a country has to agree to be sued, on the other hand every country that's a part of the WTO is subject to the rulings of the dispute settlement body for economic wrongs -- period, full stop. Now, yes, there is the "we'll rewrite our national law again, and see if it sticks" game that countries do so you can get 3 or 4 shots at a favorable DSB ruling, but at the end of the day, if you want into the WTO, you are subject to it.
Now, that would be akin to making UN membership contingent on compulsory ICJ jurisdiction. Which perhaps should be done. Countries can withdraw from the UN as a final recourse, but that is an expensive and frightening endeavor, because there are hundreds of treaties you suddenly lose the benefit of if you withdraw from the UN.
Actually, Thoran, the real answer is that through the WTO, there is an international government of sorts being developed. Think of the WTO as having only a Commerce Agency, without any of the other government agencies in place. Once you do that, it sorta requires you build the other agencies around it -- to handle fallout issues from giving commerce preeminance (such as Labor and Environment issues). Either that, or the Commerce Agency grows to become More Than Just The Commerce Agency (i.e. if the WTO were to start considering/governing things other than commerce, like labor or the environment).
Anyway, enough of my musings on these issues. I saw international government as emerging and inevitable -- until 9/11. Now, things have really sort of begun to sunder. Time will tell.
[ 05-14-2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|