Russia's 'Sovereign Democracy' & The Devil.
Russia's 'Sovereign Democracy' & The Devil.
"I give the devil benefit of the law for my own safety sake”
Russia's 'Sovereign Democracy' troll means a state is not bound by the post-WWII legal order. International Law is promoted as being an alien imposition. When Brexiteers in England propose exiting the European Court on Human Rights, they're promoting Russia's 'Sovereign Democracy' troll. When China argues for a “multi-polar” world it is arguing for an independent international legal order that allows for “Western” values like freedom from being genocided and the freedom of states, should they so choose, to genocide.
When @ANCParliament proposes exiting International Criminal Court, South Africa is framing courts' 'interference' in South Africa as an infringement of its sovereignty (in fact, societies aspiring towards equality under the law are stronger, and so more sovereign).
South Africa has now rescinded its threat to denounce the Statute of the International Criminal Court. South Africa has now affirmed that it would, in accordance with International law, arrest Putin if he attended the G20 in South Africa - there’s no Sovereign Immunity to war crimes!
Yet, in announcing that it had voted to denounce the Rome Statute, the African National Congress’s head and President of South Africa seemed prepared to make precisely the same error South Africa’s government made in 1932 when Apartheid was deemed constitutional after South Africa's government enlarged Parliament. Here's how my law teacher at Cambridge told the tale in 1998 (full story here: https://medium.com/@StephenDougla.s/https-medium-com-stephendouglas-what-was-studying-at-cambridge-like-2b1f69f6c93b):
“Right, magic girl and boys what are we doing this week? Parliamentary Sovereignty… We prefer to talk about Parliamentary Supremacy in Cambridge, don’t we?…
“Now what happened in South Africa in 1932?… Is apartheid unconstitutional?
“Chief justices a, b and c stood up to the might of those fascists who wanted to legalise apartheid.
"Two of their sons were at Emmanuel when I was an undergraduate… In the end the government introduced an Act of Parliament that enlarged the upper house. They pushed the damn thing through and darkness returned to Africa…
“You see judges can only do so much, they can only keep the politicians at bay for a certain time. Sometimes it’s quite long enough, other times -and these are the times that matter- the judge’s power is eliminated. Parliament or the prime minister changes the law and the most terrible things happen…
They killed one of my boys in Chile in 1973. Why? Because he stood up to them, that’s why. So do you think this could happen here boys and girl? Well?”
The three of us were terrible silent. A gentle breeze wafted in the scent of wisteria through the open window. Notes fluttered. Six pm chapel bells. The choir practising. A girl cried across Front Court ‘Come on, Olympia. Hurry.’
“Of course it bloody well can.
“They’ll try anything. Anything, they can get away with. That’s why you are here, you know that don’t you? The moment you turn your back… But you’re not going to turn your backs, are you? I’m going to see to that…”
Why should international law trump municipal or domestic law?
During the 1930s and early 1940s much that was done in Germany and by the 3rd Reich that we consider abhorrent was done in conformity with domestic Rules of Law.
In South Africa Apartheid was deemed constitutional after the government expanded Parliament to dilute opposition.
Nazi'ism, Ruschism, and Apartheid weren't Right / Reich. But they had the power of Writ to support their monstrousness.
The post-WWII settlement established a universally applicable legal order. This enabled humanity, for the first time in history, to apply a standard against which Nazi'ism, Ruschism, and apartheid could be judged as Unwritable - no Writ to forcibly transfer Ukrainian children into Russia is legally possible now.
It's Reich that Russia's 'Sovereign Democracy' is constrained by the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War.
Purpose of Ruschism's 'multipolar world' and its entire war in Ukraine is, mainly, about destroying the post-WWII legal order. Globally.
Compromise over Crimea, and the international legal order breaks down globally. That's what the Ruschists are playing for. They don't care about NATO, Ukraine, or anything apart from establishing a lawless international order in which might is reich. All Russian Disinfolklore (see http://www.disinfolklore.com) is focussed on distracting us from its promotion of its 'Sovereign Democracy' trolling ideology of Permanent Genocide.
Kleptocracy and genocide then become legally allowed again.
Russia is fighting against the post-WWII legal order. Ukraine is just Russia's instrument to destroy this legal architecture.
Those pressuring Ukraine to accept the Crimea Compromise are either negligent or actively participating in Russia's war against International Legal order.
The 1950s English play “A Man for All Seasons” makes the point rather well. It’s poignant to re-read this speech in the light of how the current unelected English government has passed legislation several times in the past three years that explicitly breaks international law (see https://medium.com/political-risk/this-week-in-the-uk-weve-gone-from-the-rule-of-law-to-the-rule-of-six-and-now-that-the-justice-da7be6378953). In the past week, England’s unelected government pushed through a Bill in Parliament which explicitly violates its duty in international law to give asylum to anyone with a well founded fear of persecution on certain grounds. Nevertheless the point here is well made and the unelected governments of China, England, Russia would do well to understand the implications of constitutionally enshrining lawlessness:
“This world is planted thick with laws from coast to coast and if you cut them down do you think you could really stand upright in the winds that would blow then? I give the devil benefit of the law for my own safety sake.”
It’s worth perhaps making one final point. The idea of a land’s prosperity being connected to the lawfulness of those who rule it is a very ancient tenet in Indo-European law. Violating this rule will turn an Indo-European state into the Waste Land.
