[utilize1808]

> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms.

That's rather naïve.

How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined?

US, for quite some time, is the international law.

[_DeadFred_]

Article 6 of the United States Constitution says international law is United States law. US courts are the enforcement mechanism as far as the United States Constitution is concerned.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/

In the Treaty of the Danish West Indies the US will "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-3...

[dragonwriter]

> That's rather naïve.

No, its factual.

> How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined?

Had you read the entire comment you were responding to, you would note that as well as pointing out that international law has enforcement mechanisms, that I pointed out how the executive part of those differs from what many national criminal law systems use (which is a real difference), and moreover the problem they have with conflicts of interests between any of the available executive agents with many important enforcement issues (a situation which also happens with national criminal law systems even where, unlike international law, they have a nominally-dedicated executive body for enforcement purposes rather than relying on the adjudicative/determinative body calling for an ad hoc posse the way that international law generally works.)

[utilize1808]

I did. It's simply that it's not clear how the "difference" you described makes any difference here.

Was it you who wrote the lines for Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister?

[LadyCailin]

What about when a police officer gets qualified immunity after murdering someone? Does this mean the US has no enforcement mechanisms?

[dragonwriter]

Or what happens when crimes are committed by, or at the direction and with the protection of the President of the United States.

I think most people would not argue that “US federal criminal law has no enforcement mechanism”, they would argue that “US federal criminal law has a significant practical enforcement problem where enforcement of the law conflicts with interests of the chief executive”.

[utilize1808]

Didn't see that one coming.

Not sure what your agenda is but that's just the law *enforcement* doing the enforcing part. You can argue that it is unjust, that's a separate issue.

[LadyCailin]

My point is, the powerful nations are the enforcement mechanism in international law. When they are the ones breaking the law themselves, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an enforcement mechanism, it just means it’s a possibly unjust one, just like with national enforcement mechanisms.

[utilize1808]

The difference is that in the national case, justice is expected; whereas in the international case, it must be understood that there is not supposed to be a "enforcement mechanism" that delivers justice.

[dragonwriter]

In both case there are enforcement mechanism that deliver the will of the enforcers collectively which sometimes correlates with justice or at least a reasonable reading of the letter of the law; in both cases there are a wide set of failure modes from the perspective of law and even moreso justice, because law enforcement (and, in the case of concern for justice, also law making) rely on institutions ultimately composed of people, and the interests of those people is often not in the law or justice.

If you see the difference as being “in the national case, justice is expected”, you either have an extremely naive view of national law, or at a minimum of an extremely narrow and privileged one.

[utilize1808]

Sure, you can argue that "justice is expected" doesn't align with how the real world actually operates, but in the modern interpretation, national law enforcers are supposed to be subject to the same law they are enforcing (whether that is actually the case is another issue); they may break the law some times, but being a law enforcer does not exempt them from the obligation of obeying the law. In other words, law and its enforcement apply universally.

In the international case, it is understood that the "law enforcers" are not obliged to play by the same rule. The "enforcement" therefore only applies selectively. Then the law cannot really be said to have been being enforced, because they don't apply to the "enforcer".