Challenges to international law

“In Manila, there were strong criticisms of our ongoing war on drugs Why did I allow it? Well, because it was an academic conference.

En route now to the United States after a hectic four days in Europe that brought me to three countries. First stop was The Hague where I delivered a paper in a meeting sponsored by both the French and the American Societies of International Law. It was for a forum on “Current Challenges to International law: The Role of Societies for International Law,” which was held at The Hague Academy of International Law in the Peace Palace, home of the International Court of Justice. To my pleasant surprise, the who’s who in the field, including all the judges of the world court, past and present, were in attendance.

The first day pictured a grim prospect for international law. The specific panel topics mirrored this pessimism, to wit: “New Crisis of International Law or the Threat of Collapse of the International Legal Order”; and “The Dehumanization of International Law.” This pessimism centered on the rise of unilateralism in the use of force. Under the United Nations charter, the use of force is illegal except by way of self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. Since the 1980s, there’s been a resurgence of unilateral use of force initially because of humanitarian necessity; but also because of the United States’ insistence on playing the role of international policeman. In the trade front, the pessimism has to do with the US declared trade war against China. Under the regime of the World Trade Organization (WTO), trade wars, or the unilateral imposition of punitive tariffs, is prohibited and subject to international countermeasures. But the current WTO system has proven inutile against Trump’s trade war. In fact, the system now faces possible collapse with the Yanks refusal to appoint new judges in the WTO.

I spoke on the first panel on Day Two of the conference. I was tasked to represent the Asian Society of International of which I was president until two weeks ago. I discussed how our society has been dealing with these challenges. My intervention started by acknowledging the difficulty to achieve unity in the biggest, most populated and most diverse continent in the planet. And yet, despite the diversity (and sometimes animosity) between countries in the continent, we have shared commonalities that have resulted in an Asian perspective on international law. Some of these commonalities include having been subjected to brutal colonialism in the hands of Caucasians, and having to deal with the very issue of survival with all five of the most countries vulnerable to climate change found in the continent. The Philippines is the fourth most vulnerable country. But as a young society, the limited means by which we are able to deal with these challenges are through our biennial conferences, the intersessional regional conferences, and the Asian Journal of International Law that is today second only in subscription to the American Journal of International Law. The biennial conferences have made the most as they have enabled us to discuss taboo in very closed Asian societies. For instance, I discussed lèse majesté in Thailand where mere discussion about the King’s health was criminal; and freedom of expression for bloggers in Vietnam, a country notorious for jailing them. In Manila, there were strong criticisms of our ongoing war on drugs Why did I allow it? Well, because it was an academic conference and moreover, the President could not care less for his critics what with his level of popularity and trust rating. As he said in his last State of the Nation Address, the three percent of those who do not like him can just very well go to hell.

In my next column, I will write about my other agenda in Europe. My subsequent columns until the 18th of September when I return home will be about my soul-searching in America where I retrace my path as a young man in Ann Arbor and beyond. Don’t miss them!