Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: Large and powerful institutions will join new systems of law like international law only if they see a benefit in it. And if the U.S. sees itself as the sole superpower then it is not necessarily in its political interest, or it doesn’t perceive it in its political interest to join the international institutions, at least from one side of the aisle, then we would end up withdrawing from things like the International Criminal Court. I personally don’t find that to be in our best interest. But it’s a very effective political issue. So as long as we’re in a world where there’s a single superpower I think it will be difficult for that country to put itself in that system. China is rising. Will China submit to the international law system if it becomes the clear superpower in the world? Will it submit to the economic system? Perhaps there are more effective mechanisms economically to bring them in, but I don’t see any reason to believe that it would be any easier than getting the U.S. to do that. So our best chance if we want a more balanced adherence to international law will be to have a more balanced world where there is not a single power dominating.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: This is a legal question in front of which a literal stands in full ignorance. Understandably, to apply public international law effective enforcement mechanisms are needed. However what is in the justice system unjust and can a reasonable sense be found in the whole sphere of global busyness? It is difficult to answer this question positively and optimistic.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: I think the short answer to this is, is there’s very little purpose. I think, again, if people aren’t – if governments and particularly people at large are not obeying public international laws, and that is the case often, then enforcement has to be that stop point. We have many, many mechanisms in place. For example, the International Court of Justice. It’s a pity that many governments don’t agree with that or are trying to flout that and some of the most powerful governments are doing that. The governments and countries must abide by their agreements, especially when they are in conflict with their own economic, political and military agendas. So yeah, very little purpose. It has to be by agreement.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Catherine David: Thats a very deadpan and true question and conclusion at the same time. Its evident that international laws can become more complex or can be reformed to be more precisely, to become real laws. But I think the problem is not about the laws but about their application. So this is a very complicated problem as the law exists and as it can solve a lot of problems but at the same time their is a problem of application. And as there are problems of application, there are political problems and in this way problems of int he range of governments, problems of arbitrage and of decisions. And in this way we have to take a look on certain institutions like the UN which should enforce the international laws but they do not always function in the right way as the UN for example asks for the respect of sanctions to Hamas in a totally different way as it asks Israel for the respect of sanctions. And thats absolutely inacceptable and very dangerous. So I think the problem is not about the law itself as it would not be very difficult to reform , to rebuilt and to rewrite a certain number of laws. But the problem is that we can dispose of the best written and the most precisly laws and it is absolutely in vain as we are not able to applicate and to enforce them and thats above all a political problem.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: Of course we have UN. We have all their laws, but they're not implemented. I think it is time that we really mean what we say and I think we should equip UN so that they can manage these conflicts. For example, in Rwanda, because UN was not equipped enough, a million people were killed in the presence of UN because UN was overpowered. In Congo, for years a war had been going on. There is UN, but people are still dying every day. Then in northern Uganda, 20 years of war. UN can only speak and yet we have so much resources of those countries, of other countries, and nothing is done. People are more dying now than they did when UN didn't exist. People more dying, children are more suffering more than before. It is untold suffering and it have become our everyday life. We seem to have accepted this suffering. We seem to have seen so much of death that we have decided to live with it. It's like we have accepted the loss of human beings. And I think it's a shame that we still have UN, but it cannot do its job. I think the world's poor and rich should begin to make UN do the job it was assigned to do.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: It is deplorable that the United States of America torpedo the international courts of human rights more and more, the developments in Rome concerning the establishing of the court of human rights in Den Haag, as well. It is deplorable that the United Nations, even though they want to adjust their human rights commissions and policies of human rights and to make them more equitable in order to reduce the proportion of dictatorships that formerly, as Libya for instance, Cuba and China, have influenced the policy of human rights and have avoided the sanctions for the transgression of human rights. But as a matter of fact, we see that China has got massive economic interests, interests in oil, in resources in Africa and that China prevents the security council, the United Nations and democratic states from imposing sanctions against Sudan. China covers this and prevents this by its own policies of oil and resources, that is to say the policy of human rights is more and more at the mercy of economic "Realpolitik" and this displays that the changes and the reforms of the United Nations concerning their human rights policy do not show the success that they should have. However, this is not an argument for the United States to keep their distance, not to participate in the United Nations or in the court of human rights in Den Haag. Is is irresponsible and of course shows the idea of the American exceptionalism, in international politics as well, which is a menace to international politics. The European states show more responsibility in this regard, but it is clear that the policy of human rights is under the influence of economic interest and the policy of power and that the affected individual, especially in Africa and Asia, must suffer because of this. However, we must acknowledge that the court of human rights in Den Haag tries to exert influence in Yugoslavia, in Kosovo, in Darfur, to line up legal procedures and to punish the transgression of human rights. But so far the reform of the UN has not shown the success that would be desirable.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Cornel West: Well, certainly there must be a mechanism of enforcement for international law, but even if there’s not, the public international law reminds us of what the standards actually are and it serves as a basis upon which we can work to try to create more mechanisms of enforcement. Public international law is one of the most important forces in the world today if we are going to be able to somehow overcome very intense conflicts, be they economic, military, political. But, the issue of enforcement has so much to do with the balance of power and the balance of forces in the world today. And, of course, the UN has been too often used and manipulated by American elites, even given the presence of many many voices there, the 192 countries who constitute the body of that institution. But, we must never give up on the need for public international law even if we are living in a moment now where the United States has often times so flagrantly shunned any kind of multilateralism that has to do with acknowledging public international law, be it Geneva Convention, be it the United Nations itself, be it Kyoto treaties and so on and so forth. So that we should not in anyway be discouraged simply because the mechanisms of enforcing public international law are not as strong as they ought. And we’ve come a long way and I think that, in fact, we can even go further down the road if we could somehow bring some power and pressure to bear from below again; but that democratic globalization goes hand in hand with public international law, goes hand in hand with multilateral cooperation, hand in hand with nation states engaging in dialogue rather than coercion, engages in discussion rather than the use of violence.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: For me, there is a great contribution of international laws. It’s very important. It’s just like the respect of human rights. It should be governed by an international law, for example, the Convention 169, ILO Convention 169, for the Human Rights. For me it’s very important to have an international law. However, if some members of the United Nations, as I said a while ago, will say, “We are not subscribed to it.” That’s the beginning actually of destroying or eroding the effectivity enforcement of the international law. And, it will become useless but for me in my point of view, especially for us indigenous peoples who are always, you know, being harassed in any part of the world, we need to have a law that governs this convention, that governs human rights and need to be implemented. Those laws should be implemented accordingly. I don’t think, I would not agree that all international laws are not implemented or enforced effectively. I would say, most of the laws as I recognize internationally are being applied and this is the belief in it. The only thing that hinders the obligation of an international law, if one country or one leader would say, “We don’t like to agree," or "We don’t like to subscribe to it,” and that’s the time where international law will never or will never have an effective enforcement and application. This is very bad.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi:

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: In the first time I visited the work group about indigenous people at the United Nations, where we discussed the universal declarations of indigenous rights, more than 15 years ago, I was very happy to see those laws we were working on were an international declaration to protect indigenous rights. Afterwards, when I used to come back home, or come back to my indigenous community -and by this time I was working on a developing project in the “Potiguara” Community- I told the people that there was a universal declaration of indigenous rights, I felt it was quite a distant subject for them and they didn’t want to hear about it. And I was sad about this, because I was coming from a place to try to explain something and people just couldn’t understand because things are very immediate: the bread, the flour, the crab, the fish, the transportation, the woman who wants to give birth, the lady who needed a car to pick her up because she was having a heart attack and had to go to the city but didn’t have any transport. So the problems were immediate in this way, and my mind got lost, I mean, my mind couldn’t find a connection for that. And I talked the same thing to the local leaders. And today, after 15 years, we are still working on that declaration, today we have the permanent forum for indigenous people. And things still have the same needs. Because they don’t come from inside to outside, but from outside to inside. People make laws and we don’t really solve the problems in such an immediate way. It can be really worth it, because as an international right, an international law, it can benefit local people. Not that I'm underestimating the universal declaration of indigenous rights.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Eliot Weinberger: Purpose of public international law is to set an ideal and to set global standards, which one strives for. The problem of course with the United States now is that the administration has said quite openly, they don’t believe in international law, they don’t believe in international treaties. They believe that the United States does what it wants, and if the other nations want to go along with it, that’s great, and if not, tough. But, clearly, we need greater international law, we need -- difficult to imagine what the public enforcement would be, but in an idealized world, the nations enter into that kind of social contract. And then, you have ways of ostracizing those nations that are not in that social contract. In the short-term, I would like to see the United States considered as a rogue nation and to use the famous formula that the other nations of the Europe world, particularly the European Union start acting, despite what the United States is doing, not waiting for the United States to lead the conservation in terms of peace in other countries and negotiations and so forth and so on, but they become a separate force for good based on the classic -– on the European ideal of what has been accomplished here in the last –- in the post-war period.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: Very good question, Maria from Nicosia. How can we have public international law if there are no effective enforcement mechanisms to apply it? You’re absolutely right that it doesn’t help much to have laws that aren’t enforceable. And that’s a big problem in the world today because in the globalizing world there’s no doubt that we need effective international law. We have of course some conventions such as the Geneva Convention and we have international treaties. And we’re trying to figure out how to govern ourselves as a global family. But it’s still very, very difficult because of the lack of ways of enforcing it. I think what has to happen is that first of all we have to get agreements more widely, more globally. My own country, the United States, is a big problem because we don’t support the International Court in the Hague. And of course that’s one effort at enforcing the laws is to have a way of trying people who violate those laws. We need something like that but we need the dominant forces in the world to participate in it. And as long as they refuse it isn’t going to work. So the question is how do we get countries like my own to support an entity like a World Court? Is there a different way of doing it? Do we have other legal systems we can look at? For instance in indigenous cultures. If we look at how did they settle their disputes. Are there alternative kinds of legal systems to the one we have now. This is a wide open question and an extremely important one for young people to think about because you can’t run a healthy family without having some internal family rules that everyone agrees to. Maybe we have to start with common values. If we could just get everybody in the world to agree to the Golden Rule from time immemorial cultures have had some version or other of do unto others as you would have them to unto you. If we could get that kind of value agreed to globally maybe we would have a stronger basis for international law. I don’t know. I hope you and everybody around you are debating these issues. I hope that students are going to research the answers to the questions that we’re trying to give today at this very international little mini U.N.--

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Ervin Laszlo: The purpose of international law is to create the rule of law on the international level. If there are no effective enforcement mechanisms, they apply to it or apply it. Then it doesn’t achieve its purpose. It’s a question not of doing a very good international law, but creating effective enforcement mechanisms to apply it.

by Ervin Laszlo

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Esther Mwaura-Muiru:

by Esther Mwaura-Muiru

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Fernando Solanas: There are international laws, there are international agreements which have not always been just and still many conflicts remain as a product of the injustice of these agreements. The problem is the authority or the instrument of application. These are the mechanisms theta have to be perfected. The paramount example of this is why the resolutions of the United Nations cannot be applied in the Middle East conflict, why this permanent violence, why this justification of the annexation of territory to [millennial] peoples, why this incapability of achieving consent? It was sought-after, agreements were reached, and as I said before, these agreements led to further deaths. The sector of the state of Israel that had agreed was practically wiped out since the assassination of the Rabin and the expansionistic and aggressive politics of the state of Israel continued to be applied. The was no authority in the world that tried to solve the conflict and all this provoked big violent conflicts in which innocent people died – war does not distinguish between innocent or not - in which innocent Israelis and innocent Palestinians died, and today innocent Lebanese die. Like always the conflict is about who applies and how he goes about applying. The world and the big international authorities are in the hands of the big powers and they are the ones to be asked.

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Fred Matser: In itself, it is already good that there is international law in place. And of course, I realize with you that there is not yet enough effective enforcement. The very fact that it exists means that we are taking steps. And as long as we keep on talking about it and trying to also implement enforcement, we are on our way. Let's not forget with everything we have been discussing today and we are going to talk about this afternoon, we are in process. We are learning from one another. We have to help one another on this way and see life as process. The thing is, of course, why is it not yet in place, the enforcement, is perhaps also the lack of will or the lack of money, the lack of mobilized -- to mobilize money to this cause. But, there are on the other hand also, good signs as we see in many countries a functional police. I think of Western countries, where the police in majority works well, where it has even a preventive working and where there is because of its sheer presence and existence, there is relatively -- a relative quiet society. I think of Germany, where we are, I think of The Netherlands, I think of Scandinavian countries and many, many other examples, where law enforcement is quite well in place. And these situations that I described might be a good example for other countries to implement as well.

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 1:45:00 PM cite

Galsan Tschinag: Actually: there is no purpose. Public international law that is not able to stop an aggressor or to help a victim is nothing but a name, for the time being. But I am sure that, when we, when humanity will have become a bit more mature, we will surely have a functioning institution for this purpose, because we simply need one.

by Galsan Tschinag