As I see it | America declares international law for thee but not for me
In Orwellian totalitarianism, two plus two can equal five. But with American hegemony, things can be A and not A at the same time.
Earlier this month, Washington declared war on the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose very existence, it claims, poses an “intolerable” challenge to America’s sovereignty. But, citing an international maritime law, it also led a coalition of 14 mainly Western countries in issuing a joint statement in support of a 10-year-old South China Sea arbitration ruling against Beijing.
Here’s the question: when they rule against states, don’t arbitral tribunals at The Hague pose as much of a challenge to their sovereignty as the ICC or any international court?
The US is not a party to the ICC or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) on which the South China Sea arbitration was based. That tribunal was set up under Annex VII of Unclos. The Permanent Court of Arbitration served as the case’s registry.
The arbitration invalidated most of Beijing’s maritime claims, then referred to as the nine-dash line.
So why support one set of international laws but declare war on another?