I HAVE argued against American unilateral action in Venezuela — whatever may be the issues with Nicolas Maduro’s presidency under the municipal laws of Venezuela. And whatever may have been the issues of Donald Trump against Maduro — including very serious charges of narco-trafficking — he could have turned to international enforcement agencies of which, however, Trump is no fan.
And that is just the trouble. When you marginalize the very institutions that should be able to make a difference on the global stage, you rid yourself of the mechanisms of legitimate redress on your behalf.
Iran, however, is a different matter, and while Trump’s warnings about the US hitting hard should the Islamic autocrats of Iran start murdering the protesting citizens may come across as high-handed and imperious, he has a point in international law. With the UN Charter, human rights have become a concern of international law — and with good reason because sadly, the most egregious violations of human rights are committed by the very state that is supposed to protect its citizens. Under the aegis of the UN, the violation of human rights is considered a threat to world peace.
On the one hand, there is the doctrine of the sovereign equality of States that forbids one state from sitting in judgment over another state and, as a consequence, bars the courts of a state from entertaining suits against the sovereign acts of another state. On the other, however, the fact that human rights are a concern of international law provides legal leverage for the actions of a foreign state that sets itself out to protect the beleaguered citizens of another state from outrages on their persons and egregious violations of their fundamental rights. There has been mention of “humanitarian intervention” — but “intervention” has an unlikeable ring to it, and while the reality may in fact consist in intervention, it would be better to characterize it as the vindication of human rights by states that should all be concerned for them.
It is a bankrupt international order that, in the name of non-interference in the domestic affairs of a state, leaves a state free to massacre its own citizens. In fact, it is the recognition that some offenses fill the common sensibilities of humankind with such revulsion that has led to the evolution of the concept of “universal jurisdiction” — a legal concept that first arose when the whole world thought of pirates as a common scourge: “hostes humani generis” — the enemies of humankind. As universal outlaws, any state was doing the world a favor by arresting, prosecuting, trying and punishing them — regardless of the nationality of the malefactors or their victims, regardless of the locus criminis that, most of the time, anyway was on the high seas. The concept has since developed and it is now accepted that for crimes like genocide and the most outrageous forms of crimes against humanity and war crimes, universal jurisdiction will lie.
Violations of international law matter — otherwise, international law would make utterly no sense. When a state does or omits something, in breach of an international obligation, there arise the consequences of state responsibility — and while this may not immediately translate into punitive action against a state, sanctions are not excluded and, in the most serious of cases, rather than resigning ourselves to the hateful posture of fence-sitters while the hapless citizens of a murderous state are frittered in the cauldron of state impunity, we may have the necessary legal warrant to whatever action may be necessary to come to the succor of victims.
No, Iran is not Venezuela and different rules apply. I am not saying that Trump should place American boots on the ground. But, really, how many deaths, tortures and acts of human denigration should we see before we say “Enough is enough” and concede the legality of decisive action?
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
Rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
