Steadfast stands the law in a ruthless world
International law isn’t for people who hold the privilege to have conversations about good and evil, but for those who become casualties of the «necessary evil».
The ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is not reserved for experts or government officials. And these laws are not insignificant like Emilie Lindseth points out in Universitas Thursday 15. of january. Because even though Lindseth's intentions are inherently good, she misunderstands the point of international law.
These laws do not exist to tell us what is morally right or wrong. They exist for people who are pushed down by states and international corporations, such as the Sámi reindeer herders of the Fosen peninsula.
The crime of Fosen Vind which Lindseth uses as an example was a violation regardless of the purpose of its energy. It disregarded the «inherent dignity» of Sámi reindeer herders. It wasn’t wrong or right; it was illegal. Having the debate about what is wrong and right may lead to the conclusion that, although bad, banishing the Sami people from the Fosen peninsula may be necessary to give energy to the people from Trøndelag. That possibility must not be contemplated, and that is precisely the role of international law, taking options off the table.
Many criticisms can be given to the international legal system: it can be paternalistic, colonial, and even a failure to those who tried to protect. But saying that it denies reasoning, misses the point of any deep legal debate. When we consider a law unfair, it is because something in our moral canon disagrees with it, sees it as «wrong». International law is always open to criticism and should always be criticized, but for that, we must dive deep into its understanding and its existence, and not reject it for a call back to its moral roots.
People already have their own ideas of good and evil, regardless of who they are. Trump himself, as said, was even reported to have suspended meetings due to the effect that images of starving Palestinian children had on him. Yet the question that he ponders isn’t «what is right and what is wrong?», but rather «How far am I willing to go for what I consider the right thing?»; as he himself said in Davos when referring to media calling him a dictator: «but sometimes you need a dictator».
Morality is subjective and can be misused, whereas international law functions as a safeguard against authoritarian will – especially when those in power believe they have «good reasons».
It's here, amid authoritarianism and abuse of power, that international law fights its battle
It's here, amid authoritarianism and abuse of power, that international law fights its battle.
We must reappropriate law, keep it away from elitism and ideas of expertism. Law governs us all, so why are we leaving its knowledge to just a few people? If we do so, we are bound to lose control over our own lives and fall into the cage that others make for us.
