CHOMSKY Archives

The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky

CHOMSKY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Martin W. Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky
Date:
Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:23:10 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bartlett wrote:
> >
> > http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2002/07/02/1023864732014.htm
> >
> > Europeans wait in vain for Bush to back the International Criminal Court
> >
> > Date: July 3 2002
> >
> > By Matthew Engel
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > He [John Bolton] added: "The ICC's supporters have an unstated agenda resting,
> > at bottom, on the desire to assert the primacy of international institutions
> > over nation states."
>
> Well, yes... sort of... the argument for doing so goes something like
> this:
>
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
> Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution for the United States of America."

A bit more on this point:

After the Revolutionary War, the thirteen colonies were sovereign nation
states.  They then tried to join under the Articles of Confederation,
Article 2 of which says the following:

"Articles of Confederation: Article 2

"II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and
every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation
expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

The US Constitution, the preamble of which is shown above, did in fact
assert the primacy of [some] international
institutions over the thirteen nation states.  So the argument against
ratifying the ICC cannot be that proponents want to assert the primacy
of international institutions, since the Constitution is based on that
very principle.  I suppose that the people in power, who will refuse to
ratify the ICC, will do so to maintain their international power, but
the support for not ratifying that they derive from the people (who gain
nothing by not having the ICC) must be racism.

martin

--
Martin Smith               email: [log in to unmask]
Vollsveien 9               tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482               mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway

ATOM RSS1 RSS2