April 21, 2003
There is no virtue in the rule of law--unless that law is legitimized by the consent of the governed. The people in Saddam’s Iraq lived under the rule of law, as did the people in Hitler’s Germany. Only the consent of the governed can give legitimacy to the rule of law.
France, Germany, and Russia joined Kofi Annan in proclaiming that the world should be governed by the rule of international law, under the administration of the United Nations. Under international law, as devised and administered by the U.N., the people who are governed by it have no opportunity to express their consent, nor to hold the lawmakers accountable.
People who are governed express their consent through the representatives they elect and empower to make laws. If they disapprove of the laws that are made, the people are free to elect new representatives who can repeal the oppressive laws.
At the United Nations, laws are fashioned by faceless bureaucrats, and adopted by the consensus of appointed delegates, who have little interest in, and no accountability to, the people who are governed by their laws. The people who are governed have no recourse.
For example, the people who live near Yellowstone National Park are governed by international law, to which they never had the opportunity to give their consent. The park is a U.N. Biosphere Reserve, and a U.N. World Heritage site. The U.S. Senate ratified the World Heritage Treaty, but had no debate, nor oversight of the Convention’s "Operational Guidelines."
When UNESCO declared the park to be "in danger," the designation triggered international obligation to protect the park, even beyond the park’s boundary. This "protection" resulted in substantial losses to private citizens from "international law," to which they did not consent.
Neither Congress, nor any state legislature, has ever voted to approve any of the 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States. International committees of bureaucrats, none of whom is elected, craft the management policy for the millions of acres covered by these reserves. To comply with "international obligations," the United States conforms its management policy, and in some cases, its law, to accommodate the wishes of bureaucrats that are completely unknown to the people who are governed by the policies.
This reality is but a hint of what is in store for those governed by the rule of international law. Massive documents, such as the 1140-page Global Biodiversity Assessment, and the 300-page Agenda 21, and the 410-page Our Global Neighborhood, all paint a picture of the international law that is being devised to govern the world in the 21st century.
To make international law binding on all nations, the U.N. created the International Criminal Court, which explicitly claims jurisdiction over all nations, even those that choose to not ratify the court’s charter. The court was presented to the world as a way to prosecute "crimes against humanity," which were described as genocide, and "war crimes."
No American voted for this international law. Bill Clinton signed the document, obligating the United States to take no action contrary to the aims of the law, but in an unprecedented action, President Bush withdrew the United State’s signature.
Kofi Annan has declared that military action in Iraq without U.N. approval is not legitimate, opening the door to prosecution of U.S. leaders and military personnel who invaded Iraq. The only thing that prevents the U.N. from exercising its imagined authority is the absence of a standing army to enforce the International Criminal Court’s judgments.
The rule of international law is not legitimate, nor can it ever be under the system of lawmaking established by the United Nations. Ronald Reagan withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO, but George Bush is the only President that has stood so firmly against the United Nations. His action has generated worldwide protests from professional demonstrators, U.N. bureaucrats, France, Germany, Russia, China, and a host of other nations, most Democrats in Congress, and many ordinary Americans who still think that the U.N. is the best hope for the future of the world.
George Bush is under growing pressure to reconcile the U.S. with the U.N., to get back into the good graces of Jacques Chirac, and Kofi Annan, to quiet the shrill voices of anti-American protests, and to bring the United States back under the sanctity of the rule of international law.
Americans should not be governed by laws to which they have not expressed their consent through their elected representatives. The United States should continue to stand firm against the United Nations’ illegitimate "international law," and instead help Iraq and other nations learn how to legitimize their own laws. There is no virtue in the rule of international law.