Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Regarding the status of international law and how it is formulated, I believe that

there should be a well-defined group within the realm of international politics whose role
is to keep track of all treaties, covenants, and agreed upon laws. I understand that a State
retains ultimate sovereignty when it comes to upholding their agreement to any covenant
or law they’ve agreed to (referencing the ICCPR). However, if there isn’t an international
supreme court of sorts, then for what purpose is the creation of a law that States agree to
abide by on sheer promise and goodwill? I believe that an international constitution
should be drafted and written on paper. One might view the ICCPR and ICESCR
covenants as the international Bill of Rights to a larger constitutional framework.
Undertaking such a task will likely be challenging, as convincing the sovereign States of
the world to not only adhere to their own laws, but international ones as well would bring
with it debates on sovereignty and the purpose of international governing bodies. My
vision for the future revolves around a written law that fosters international cooperation,
globalization, and socio-cultural flattening of the world. I do not believe that a State’s
choice to maintain its own culture and customs is wrong, but I do believe that a united
species is better than a few hundred self-interested States who prefer to be free and
ignorant of the world’s burdens. In line with “ius cogens”, although there are laws that
exist alongside a State’s sovereignty and must be upheld due to international standards of
justice, these very same principles that guide international politics and universal human
rights laws should be codified and enforced. I do not believe that enforcement of laws
focused on the humanity and dignity of the individuals affected encroaches on any State’s
sovereignty and that a world with any notion of true sovereignty ought to adhere to its
own opinions on justice and its role in governing our world.
In response to Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament, I believe that such a
political tactic is merely avoiding the dilemma at hand. The mere fact that such intense
debate is occurring at the national level regarding Brexit should clue the Prime Minister
into the opinions of the people and he should value those opinions above his own. It
seems that whenever a ruling party is at odds with those who hold them in check, as seen
with Boris Johnson and parliament or in Obama’s second term and a Republican majority
congress, that their solution is to suspend the dissenters’ opinions. I am not saying that I
agree with parliament’s refutations of Johnson’s Brexit plan nor do I agree with Johnson
himself. I hope to draw attention to the ideology that an oligarch left unchecked can
quickly dismantle the existing power structure agreed upon by those very same
constituents who put him in power (as seen in the United States with our own President
Trump). I hope that the supreme court of Britain take a more active role in politics, for
power lying in the hands of parliament and the prime minister alone is not conducive to
fostering a just society or legal system for that matter. The troublesome debate is
definitely founded in Britain’s lack of a written constitution or at least in their
government’s present inability to adapt their unwritten customs to suit modern needs. I
believe that the courts should be permitted to take an activist approach on Johnson’s
exercise of his right to express an opinion, as listed in Article 19, but that this right
should not be deemed as a supreme power of British society. Any individual whose
personal opinion is regarded as superior to those of their legal underlings should be seen
as a threat to democracy as it exists.
In short, I contend that several of Trump’s statements and actions, such as his
decision to pardon ICE enforcers for their actions and in his own words that “anything he
does is right”, are in direct violation of our written constitution. The irony exists in the
commonly understood Republican (the party) value that our constitution is a “perfect”
document that should not be changed or altered. Trump’s metaphorical insistence on
tugging the coat-tails of the United States’ founding fathers is a dangerous tribute to
Oligarchical values. The founding fathers were, more often than not, Oligarchs with good
intentions: Aristocrats one might say. Trump wishes to restore power to the super-rich in
our country. His supposed “grassroots” movement only had success because the super-
rich existed to fund it and because a considerable portion of his supporters are anti-
immigrant. As Trump has shown, he does in fact care for those parts of the Constitution
that favor his supreme power, but refutes other parts that were specifically added to
protect individuals such as migrants. In reference to Article 24 of the ICCPR, that “every
child has the right to acquire a nationality”, our president is presently attempting to steer
clear from our State’s obligation. Although the United States retains sovereignty over its
decisions, especially those relating to national security, we do not retain the right to
dehumanize any person. I draw attention to Article 24 because many of the migrants
fleeing to the U.S. from other States wish their nationality to be American. While
retaining their old culture and sense of home, they genuinely wish to live in America and
recognize that it offers them better opportunities than where they’re fleeing from.
Obviously, there are economic factors to consider when discussing the wall building
argument and whether we need it. I believe that thousands of individuals flooding across
a new land is an unprecedented mass exodus that the U.S. has not dealt with in many
years and is ill equipped to handle at present. We were not ready for these individuals to
enter our lands, but we have certainly not been gracious hosts to them either. It is
extremely unfortunate the several policies that Trump has put into effect in attempts to
slough off these in/voluntary refugees and existing asylum seekers. However, where the
U.S. goes from here will define its values, its unwritten customs that allow us to shape
our society into our vision of idealism. In order for our State’s customs to evolve, we
must learn from the mistakes of the Trail of Tears, and other actions of “great” past
presidents or leaders. Trump is teaching a generation of Americans that dehumanization
is okay, just as Jackson did before him. With such a leader in charge, what is a State
without its courts to check his power, its people to check its representatives, and its
customs to shape its understanding of human dignity as we know it?

S-ar putea să vă placă și