...bread butter of realism--were the primary determinants of state behavior. But he also believed that peoples and their nations were motivated by normative values and aspirations, not merely by a desire to marshal power and defend material interests. Carr concluded that "Utopia and reality are thus the two facets of political science. Sound political thought and sound political life will be found only where both have their place."

For Carr the problem of the interwar years was not international idealism itself, but rather international idealism run amuck. At the core of the international idealism he criticized was the assumption that right-minded human beings could agree on abstract normative principles to guide national behavior, and that these principles, once understood and embodied in international law, would influence nations to act with greater justice. By his account, international idealism discounted other factors, including the distribution of power and economic and political interests.

Carr famously argued that such idealism was self-defeating. Some nations, such as Germany, failed to comply with the principles of reason embodied by the League of Nations and similar institutions, and appealed instead to competing principles of law and morality to justify their self-interested and rapacious acts. Other nations, such as Britain and France, relied too heavily on the paper guarantees of international law, and not on a clear-eyed analysis of power and interest (both their own and Germany's), to secure international harmony. Carr attributed the growing international crisis in 1939 (his book was sent to the printer in July of that year) to the idealistic international institutions that were supposed to make a second world war impossible.

The kind of idealism that Carr understood to be so damaging to international peace and stability in the interwar years is again informing many aspects of international politics. Three developments in particular--the rise of universal jurisdiction, the creation of a new International Criminal Court, and recurring demands for humanitarian intervention--reflect a renewed commitment to international idealism. Supporters of these institutions and policies tend to believe that justice is best served when it is isolated from politics and power. Only by insulating international institutions and practice from the bargaining and compromise that characterize political decision-making, and from the domestic political pressure to which politicians must always be alert, can justice be fully realized. On this view, institutions and principles that minimize the influence of power better achieve justice than those in which power plays an important role; and decisions made by unaccountable actors, especially judges, are more likely to be just than decisions made by political leaders responsible to their electorates.

We believe the new international idealism suffers from four fundamental flaws:

* First, it assumes the utopian premise that a global consensus can be reached, not just on normative principles, but also on when and how they should be applied.

* Second, it minimizes considerations of power, and assumes that norms of right behavior can substitute for national capabilities and material interests.

* Third, it neglects political prudence: it offers a deontological rather than a consequentialist ethics.

* Fourth, it consistently slights the value of democratic accountability.

Our claim is not that idealism in international politics is irrelevant or inherently harmful. With Carr, we believe that normative ideals can provide a hope for progress, an emotional appeal, and a ground for international action. But we also agree with Carr that ideals can be pursued effectively only if decisionmakers are alert to the distribution of power, national interests, and the consequences of their policies. The lesson Carr teaches is that when idealism is not tempered by attention to these factors, the best can become the enemy of the good, and aspiration the enemy of progress.

1

Universal jurisdiction is the power of a domestic court to try foreign citizens, including government officials, for certain egregious international crimes committed anywhere in the world. This authority is premised on the idea that human rights violations are an affront to all humanity and thus may be punished anywhere, regardless of the defendants' nationality or the place of the crime. Universal jurisdiction aims to strengthen international human rights law by marshaling politically independent domestic courts to enforce that law. The classic modern example is the Pinochet case, in which Spain attempted to extradite Pinochet from England (where he was undergoing back surgery) to stand trial in Spain for torture and related international crimes he allegedly committed in Chile. (The extradition request originally charged Pinochet with crimes against Spaniards as well, but these charges were deemed inadmissible, thus making the case one of 'pure' universal jurisdiction.) The House of Lords ruled that international law required England to extradite Pinochet to Spain for these crimes, but the government of Great Britain eventually sent Pinochet back to Chile after determining that he was unfit to stand trial. (1)

The Princeton Principles of Universal Jurisdiction, a document drafted by leading scholars and jurists from around the world, (2) are a comprehensive statement of the nature and scope of universal jurisdiction. The Principles extend universal jurisdiction to piracy, slavery, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, genocide, and torture. They specify that "national judicial organs may rely on universal jurisdiction even if their national legislation does not specifically provide for it." They strip all defendants--including sitting heads of state--of any official immunities. And they maintain that amnesties in particular "are generally inconsistent with the obligation of states to provide accountability for serious crimes under international law." In short, the Princeton Principles aim to replace impunity with accountability by extending universal jurisdiction as broadly as possible.

The Princeton Principles reflect conventional wisdom among idealists about the shape and direction that international law should take. The Principles will likely influence future universal jurisdiction prosecutions, because national courts interpreting international law give special deference to the views of scholars and jurists. In our view, however, the Princeton Principles are an unfortunate development that exemplifies the new idealism's failure to take seriously the contested nature of international norms, the importance of prudence, and the possibility of abuse exacerbated by the absence of democratic accountability.

International criminal law is extraordinarily vague. Virtually everyone agrees that genocide and torture and crimes against humanity are international crimes. But when we attend to the details of what acts constitute these crimes, and of when these crimes can properly be tried by courts, there is much dispute and little definitive guidance. Consider three of many examples:

* Among the most clearly defined of international crimes is torture, which the Torture Convention defines to include any act inflicted by a public official "by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" to obtain information, punish, or intimidate. (3) Amnesty International claims that the United States violates this principle when its police use stun guns, pepper sprays, and restraint chairs, and when its prison officials use solitary confinement and related maximum security detention techniques. (4) The United States disagrees; it believes these practices are legitimate and do not constitute torture within the meaning of the Torture Convention. There is no definitive source or judicial decision that can resolve this disagreement. Under universal jurisdiction, any national court could try these U.S. officials if it, like Amnesty International and many other human rights groups, viewed these police practices as torture.

* A crucial issue in any universal jurisdiction prosecution is whether the defendant has an official immunity from prosecution under international law. The existence and scope of these immunities as they apply to universal jurisdiction...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.