"Legal Imperialism" and International Law: Legal Foundations for War Crimes,
Debt Collection and Colonization
By <
http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/james-petras> Prof. James Petras
Global Research, December 31, 2012
eagle
Introduction
By now we are familiar with imperial states using their military power to
attack, destroy and occupy independent countries. Boatloads of important
studies have documented how imperial countries have seized and pillaged the
resources of mineral-rich and agriculturally productive countries, in
consort with multi-national corporations. Financial critics have provided
abundant data on the ways in which imperial creditors have extracted onerous
rents, royalties and debt payments from indebted countries and their
taxpayers, workers, employees and productive sectors.
What has not been examined fully is the over-arching legal architecture
which informs, justifies and facilitates imperial wars, pillage and debt
collection.
The Centrality of Imperial Law
While force and violence, especially through overt and covert military
intervention, have always been an essential part of empire-building, it does
not operate in a legal vacuum: Judicial institutions, rulings and legal
precedents precede, accompany and follow the process of empire building.
The legality of imperial activity is based largely on the imperial state's
judicial system and its own legal experts. Their legal theories and
opinions are always presented as over-ruling international law as well as
the laws of the countries targeted for imperial intervention.
Imperial law supersedes international law simply because imperial law is
backed by brute force; it possesses imperial/colonial air, ground and naval
armed forces to ensure the supremacy of imperial law. In contrast,
international law lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
Moreover, international law, to the extent that it is effective, is applied
only to the weaker powers and to regimes designated by the imperial powers
as 'violators'. The very judicial processes, including the appointment of
judges and prosecutors who interpret international law, investigate
international crime and arrest, sentence and punish 'guilty' parties are
under to the influence of the reigning imperial powers. In other words, the
application and jurisdiction of international law is selective and subject
to constraints imposed by the configurations of imperial and national power.
International law, at best, can provide a 'moral' judgment, a not
insignificant basis for strengthening the political claims of countries,
regimes and people seeking redress from imperial war crimes and economic
pillage. To counter the claims and judgments pertaining to international
law, especially in the area of the Geneva protocols such as war crimes and
crimes against humanity, imperial legal experts, scholars and judges have
elaborated a legal framework to justify or exempt imperial-state activity.
The Uses of Imperial Law
Empire-building throughout history is the result of conquest - the use or
threat of superior military force. The US global empire is no exception.
Where compliant rulers 'invite' or 'submit' to imperial domination, such
acts of treason on the part of 'puppet' or 'client' rulers usually
precipitate popular rebellions, which are then suppressed by joint imperial
and collaborator armies. They cite imperial legal doctrine to justify their
intervention to repress a subject people in revolt. While empires arose
through the direct or indirect use of unbridled force, the maintenance and
consolidation of empires requires a legal framework. Legal doctrines
precede, accompany and follow the expansion and consolidation of empire for
several reasons.
Legality is really an extension of imperial conquest by other means. A
state of constant warfare raises the cost of imperial maintenance. Force,
especially in imperial democracies undermines the sense of civic virtue,
which the rulers and citizens claim to uphold. Maintaining 'law and order'
in the conquered nations requires a legal system and doctrine to uphold
imperial rule, giving the facade of legitimacy to the outside world ,
attracting collaborator classes and individuals and providing the basis for
the recruitment of local military, judicial and police officials.
Imperial legal pronouncements, whether issued directly by executive,
judicial, military or administrative bodies, are deemed the 'supreme law of
the universe', superior to international law and protocols fashioned by
non-imperial authorities and legal experts. This does not imply that
imperial rulers totally discard international law: they just apply it
selectively to their adversaries, especially against independent nations and
rulers, in order to justify imperial intervention and aggression - Hence the
'legal bases' for dismantling Yugoslavia or invading Iraq and assassinating
its rulers.
Legal rulings are issued by the imperial judiciary to force states to comply
with the economic demands of multi-national corporations, banks, creditors
and speculators, even after the local or national courts have ruled such
claims unlawful. Imperial law protects and provides sanctuary and financial
protection to convicted former collaborator-rulers charged with human rights
crimes, pillage of public treasury and destruction of democratic
institutions. Imperial judicial and administrative agencies selectively
investigate, prosecute and levy severe fines and even jail sentences on
banks, individuals and financial institutions of their competitor imperial
countries, thereby strengthening the economic position of their own
'national' imperial firms.
Judicial officials are not only 'instruments' of closely related imperial
political and economic powers; they also instrumentalize and, in some cases,
override officials from other branches of their own imperial government and
economic sectors. Judges, with ties to particular financial sectors, may
rule in favor of one group of creditors thereby prejudicing others. In a
recent ruling, a New York judge ruled in favor of the demands by minority
creditors that the Argentine government make 'full payment' on long-standing
national debt in, prejudicing already agreed upon payments to the majority
of creditors who had negotiated an earlier debt-restructuring arrangement.
Imperial legal doctrine has played a central role in justifying and
providing a basis for the exercise of international terrorism. Executives,
such as US Presidents Bush and Obama, have been provided with the legal
power to undertake cross-national 'targeted' assassinations of opponents
using predator drones and ordering military intervention, in clear violation
of international law and national sovereignty. Imperial law, above all
else, 'legalizes' aggression and economic pillage and undermines the laws of
targeted countries, creating lawlessness and chaos among its victims.
Imperial law and judicial rulings form the basis for imperial subjugation on
the assumption that the world legal systems are multi-tiered:
Imperial-centered legal systems supersede those of less powerful states.
Within each 'tier' there are further refinements: Competing imperial legal
systems adjudicate in favor of their partisan political and economic elites.
Imperial clients who obey their imperial overlords are favored by imperial
laws while imperial laws are applied against their adversaries.
Conclusion
Clearly in a world imperial system there can be no independent judicial
bodies who abide by universally accepted legal codes. Each set of judicial
authorities reflect and actively promote policies favoring and extending
their imperial prerogatives. There are rare exceptions where a judge will
rule against a particular imperial policy but over the long run imperial law
guides judicial opinions
Imperial legal doctrines and judicial decisions set the groundwork for
imperial wars and economic pillage. The empire's legal experts redefine
assassinations, coercion, torture and arbitrary arrests as compatible with
the 'constitutional order' by claiming imminent and constant threats to the
security of the imperial state.
Law is not simply part of the superstructure "reflecting" the power of
economic or political institutions: it also guides and directs political
and economic institutions committing material resources to implement
imperial doctrines.
In this sense, imperial rulers are not 'lawless' as some liberal critics
would argue; they function in accordance with 'imperial jurisprudence' and
are faithful to the legal doctrines of empire building. It is pointless to
argue that most imperial leaders trample on constitutional guarantees and
international laws. If an imperial ruler pursued a "constitutional agenda"
eroding imperial prerogatives or, even worse, applied international law to
prosecute those carrying out brutal imperial policy, he would be quickly
condemned for dereliction of duty and/or immoral behavior and impeached or
overthrown.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Mon Dec 31 2012 - 07:53:55 EST
