III. Comment on the following quotations:

• International law is that law which the wicked do not obey and the righteous do not enforce. (Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban)

• No man is above the law and no man below it.  (Theodore Roosevelt)

• There are disjunctures between the idea of the state as in principle capable of determining its own future, and the world economy, international organizations, regional and global institutions, international law and military alliances which operate to shape and constrain the options of individual nation-states. (D.Held)

• The laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of life in society. The people being subject to laws, must be their author; only those who are associated together are entitled to regulate the conditions of the society (Rousseau)

• "Laws are made to protect the state from the individual and not the individual from the state" (Gottlieb).

• The good of people is the highest law (Marcus Cicero)

• Justice is truth in action (Benjamin Disraeli)

• There is, then, no liberty without laws, nor any place where any man is above the laws: even in the state of nature, man is only free thanks to the natural law which is over all. …In a word a fate of liberty is linked to the fate of laws. (Rousseau)

IV. Suggested activities for students:

1. As the U.S. deficit increases, all branches of government are being asked to review their budgets. The President has contacted you to ask for your advice. He says that the United States spends a lot of money to sup­port the UN and promote adherence to international law. Moreover, the President feels that international law is an infringement on U.S. sovereignty. He is seriously considering slashing U.S. financial support for anything related to supporting international law. Develop a position statement with supporting evidence to assist the Presi­dent.

2. In theory if a country is powerful enough it can be autonomous. An anti-treaty country can reject a treaty when it threatens to restrain the country itself from doing something it might like to do. But is it in its interests to be? Is this option available in contemporary conditions? Won’t it be harmful for the country in the long run?

3. If the ICC was to work as advertised – its professed purpose is to indict warring despots and mass murderers, extradite them, try them, and award them their just deserts – it would be no bad thing. There is, however, a problem, and one with especially severe implications: it will not, and cannot word as advised. Does this point of view seem to have grounds? Why or why not?

4. Do the palpable flaws of the ICC treaty mean that the world community is helpless to bring outlaws to justice?

5. According to William Coplin International law is an institutional device for communicating to the policymakers of various states a consensus on the nature of the international system. Would you agree with this definition? Why or why not?

6. When the ICC was established the most acute questions on its work were:

• What will give it power and will nations willingly accept its jurisdiction?

• Who will its judges be and how countries will they be selected and how can we trust their judgment?

• Will a nation willingly surrender to the court one of its citizens to be tired?

• Will the ICC have jurisdiction over the nations which choose not to participate?

• What will constitute jurisdiction: the nation in which a crime is committed, the homeland of the accused, or the homeland of the victim?

Choose one of the questions and research it. Once feeling knowledgeable present your view on the question given.

7. Write an essay on the topic: “In international pol­itics what is legal is not necessarily moral”.