perception wrote:Recently, the question of personal responsibility of rulers has become increasingly topical [..] But international bodies assert that it is impossible to take action against [despots] because they could plead the sovereignty of the state. This is also something which the rulers exploit ruthlessly by emphasizing again and again that, according tothe present reading of Art. 2 clause 7 of the UN Charter, international bodies have no right to interfere in the so-called internal affairs of other states.
For these reasons, the legal concept of sovereignty under international law is a decisive point in the whole debate.
Yes. I therefore consider it a good development that, ever so slowly, the "holy" concepts of national sovereignty and territorial integrity have become a little more questioned and relativated.
The War Crimes Tribunals take up jurisdiction over crimes despots have committed, even if they committed them on their "own" territory against their "own" subjects. The International Criminal Court was set up by a majority of world countries even though it explicitly takes on some overriding authority when it comes to prosecuting crimes against humanity. Judges in Spain and Belgium are using the fate of the odd countryman that ended up in the hands of a military dictator to bring such dictators to justice even when they considered themselves safe within their "own" country.
Military interventions like those in Kosovo were not triggered by a violation of state borders by the aggressor, but instead justified in terms of intervening on behalf of victims of war crimes; and can, considering the scarce strategic/economic value of Kosovo, indeed be said to actually have been motivated by such considerations, too. In general, those who launch wars or interventions pay at least lip service to the notion of international law and some kind of overarching authority of the UN.
More and more countries are accepting election observers from international organisations and - to just jump up a level - more and more countries are accepting the relativity of their national auhority in accepting conventions and procedures that come with CoE, OSCE, EU membership (and that's just the European alphabet). From the UK to Moldova, Iraq (jawohl) and Indonesia, processes of devolution and decentralisation have these past ten years relativated national authority vis-a-vis degrees of local and regional self-government. Et cetera.
In fact, the problem you sketch may still be one of the most acute ones of the modern world, but perhaps looks less dire now than at any time since the days of Cold War and decolonisation.
Still ... that text you linked ... I'm a bit of an internationalist and slightly less of a peacenik - but those proposals go waaaay too far even for me! ;-)