The Illusion of International Law 
by Mumia Abu-Jamal 
May 11, 1998 
  
In sum, stare decisis, [or the doctrine of letting the prior decision of law stand] while integral to the language of  legal discourse and the mystique of legal reasoning, serves a primarily ideological rather than functional role. Nor is there any more validity to the notion of legal reasoning when the source of law is constitutional or statutory provision or the language of an agreement. Courts determine  the meaning and applicability of the pertinent language; similar arguments and distinctions are available; and the ultimate basis is a social and political judgment. -- Law is simply politics by other means.  
  
 -- David Kairys, Esq., The Politics of Law (1982)  
  
                              * * *  
  
     The very term, 'International Law', evokes in us a sense of calm, arising from the near certainty that an umbrella of law shields and protects us from the raging downpour of chaos. So often have we heard the words, that it now echoes in consciousness, as a thing unquestioned. Indeed, it is a 'thing' to us, a living reality that, like pornography, may be difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it. Or do you?  
  
     The late, revered Malcolm X taught that history is best equipped to reward our research, so let us look to history.  
  
     Over a million ethnic Armenians were annihilated under Turkey's Ittihad Party, and millions of Jews were massacred under Germany's Nazi party. These historic horrors arose in a world where the Geneva Conventions (of 1864 and 1906) and the Hague Conventions (of 1899 and 1907) forbade war crimes, protected the prisoners of war, and ordered protection and respect for civilians and private property.  
  
     In World War I, the Ittihad-sparked genocide against Armenians was so widespread that years later, none other than Adolph Hitler would tell his generals, "our strength is in our quickness and our brutality." He asked, tellingly, "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?" (Fr. Simpson, C.  The Splendid Blond Beast, Common Courage Pr., 1995).  
  
     International law, it turns out, is the creation of the ruling class elites, on behalf of elites. Millions of so-called "stateless peoples" (like Jews of WWII or Armenians of WWI) were sacrificed to the national interests of the 'International Community', who saw them as expendable. Author Christopher Simpson quotes a bigoted US diplomat for his feelings on the two peoples: The US High Commissioner to Turkey was Admiral Mark L. Bristol, a man with a reputation as a bigot and determined advocate of US alliance with Mustafa Kemal [Attaturk]. "The Armenians," Bristol wrote, "are a race like the Jews - they have little or no national spirit and poor moral character" (33).  
  
     Years later, US Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, when faced with a growing movement in the state department to press German elites for complicity in the crimes against humanity, would protect the elites. Simpson writes: Lansing strongly objected to any introduction of the concept of "laws of humanity" and to trials of foreign leaders before any foreign or international court. International law, he contended, regulated relations among nations; it had no jurisdiction over what a state chooses to do to its own people (25).  
  
     In the end, it didn't matter what was written on paper, in the glazed texts of lawbooks, nor in scripted treaties. International law bowed to national (economic) interests, and the weak fell before the strong. Here was the grim historical blueprint for Bosnia, for Rwanda, and for genocides to come.  
  
     Copyright 1998 Mumia Abu-Jamal. All Rights Reserved