International airports, international law
Perhaps you heard about the Canadian citizen (naturalized from Syria) who expected to change planes at a normal layover at Kennedy Airport, but instead was detained by U.S. authorities in Brooklyn, then sent to Syria where he was tortured.
A U.S. federal court just ruled that the U.S. government was not out of line for its actions.
Non-stop flights really have their advantages, eh?
But seriously folks... airports certainly have been the site of some oddities of international law.
Remember that Tom Hanks movie, "The Terminal," about the former Iranian man stuck at Charles de Gaulle airport since Aug. 8, 1988. Yes, he's still there.
It happened recently in Kenya, too, to a stateless man who waited 13 months to be approved for a British passport.
That reminds me of the Israeli passport stamp stigma.
But anyway, international law is a complicated subject, and that's one of many reasons why I'm not going to grad school for that.
A U.S. federal court just ruled that the U.S. government was not out of line for its actions.
Non-stop flights really have their advantages, eh?
But seriously folks... airports certainly have been the site of some oddities of international law.
Remember that Tom Hanks movie, "The Terminal," about the former Iranian man stuck at Charles de Gaulle airport since Aug. 8, 1988. Yes, he's still there.
It happened recently in Kenya, too, to a stateless man who waited 13 months to be approved for a British passport.
That reminds me of the Israeli passport stamp stigma.
But anyway, international law is a complicated subject, and that's one of many reasons why I'm not going to grad school for that.
posted by bp at
3:44 PM
3 Comments:
I think the key problem w/ understanding international law is that there's no univeral sovereign. Law only works in places were sovereignty exists.
For example, in the US, it's illegal to steal. That law only exists so long as the state (govt) has the ability to enforce it through credible threats of coercion (jail).
It's "illegal" to invade another country. But who enforces it? International law is like the wild west; and the laws are enforced by cowboys. The townfolk may no like how the sherif enforces the law (gunfights), but unless they want to grab a rifle and run the bandits out of town, they're just waiting for a miracle.
I highly recommend the old classic "High Noon" for a good sense of how international law would work in enforcing peace. It's a great metaphor picture.
By
Miguel Centellas, at 5:35 PM
The outcome in this case does seem extreme, but I tend to agree with the principles at work.
Along US international borders and ports of entry, like the lawyer for the govt argued, travelers must demonstrate their admissibility. In this case it seems that there was specific intelligence that the Syrian-Canadian fellow was involved in al Qaeda activity. The conundrum being that said intel is classified, so defense attorneys can't examine it to determine legal defense theories.
The article also suggests that the canadian plaintiff was denied counsel and kept in the dark about his deportation to Syria until he was put on a plane. I question the thoroughness of the article on this point, and wonder if there's more to this story. Whether the plaintiff's a dual citizen of Canada and Syria, for example.
Oh, and ditto Miguel. Public international law - composed of treaties, international customs and general principles of law - is only internally enforceable unless the state has signed onto some sort of supranational adjudicative body such as the ICC. And even then, if the state determines that the international "law" isn't compatible with its interests, the state simply doesn't obey. And for powerful states like the US, no other state or international org can do a thing about it.
The law of the use of force is a fascinating subject. Like Miguel said, it's illegal to use belligerant force according to everything from the UN treaty to present international principles of law, but if the invading state is sufficiently powerful declaring said invasion illegal is a moot point.
By
t'su, at 10:25 AM
True, true, and thanks for the comments.
And laws regarding when military force is justified have a huge loophole if they allow "self defense," which of course the U.N. charter does.
Is pre-emption included in self defense? Many argue so.
And then there's genocide... it makes intervention permissible, but definitions of the "g" word vary.
As long as the U.S. is as powerful as it is, international law will largely be what we say it is. What a strange and shifting entity!
By
bp, at 9:49 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home