Impact Turn – NATO x I. Law – Democracy !

Impact Turn – NATO x I. Law – Democracy !

[*241] Not so long ago the overwhelming majority of courts in democratic countries shared a reluctance to refer to foreign and international law. Their policy was to avoid any application of foreign sources of law that would clash with the position of their domestic governments. Many jurists find recourse to foreign and international law inappropriate. n1 But even the supporters of reference to external sources of law hold this unexplored assumption that reliance on foreign and international law inevitably comes into tension with the value of national sovereignty. Hence, the scholarly debate is framed along the lines of the well-known broader debate on "the countermajoritarian difficulty." n2 This article questions this assumption of tension. It argues that for courts in most democratic countries--even if not for U.S. courts at present--referring to foreign and international law has become an effective instrument for empowering the domestic democratic processes by shielding them from external economic, political, and even legal pressures. Citing international law therefore actually bolsters domestic democratic processes and reclaims national sovereignty from the diverse forces of globalization. Stated differently, most national courts, seeking to maintain the vitality of their national political institutions and to safeguard their own domestic status vis-a-vis the political branches, cannot afford to ignore foreign and international law.

The fall of Communism not only ended the Cold War; it also ended the only universalist ideological challenge to democracy. Radical Islam may still offer an alternative to democracy in parts of the world, but it appeals by definition only to Moslems and has not even won the assent of a majority of these. And Iranian President Khatami's second landslide election victory in 2001 suggests that even in the cradle of radical Islam the yearning for democracy is waxing. That Freedom House could count 120 freely elected governments by early 2001 (out of a total of 192 independent states) bespeaks a vast transformation in human governance within the span of 225 years. In 1775, the number of democracies was zero. In 1776, the birth of the United States of America brought the total up to one. Since then, democracy has spread at an accelerating pace, most of the growth having occurred within the twentieth century, with greatest momentum since 1974. That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary years in all history, was inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide that there was certain to be some backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has included some fits and starts rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless, the overall trend remains powerful and clear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than ever before. This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.

Impact Turn – NATO x I. Law – AT: Alt Causes

Every instance of international law is key

Eriksen 9 (Asmund, Counselor to the UN for Norway, Oct 14 2009, http://www.norway-un.org/Statements/Committe-Meetings/Rule-of-law/)IM

States protect their interests through the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral agreements with other states. They recognise the need to establish clarity, certainty and predictability in their international relations. All states undertake treaty obligations for a reason. If international obligations are not honoured by a state, that state runs the risk of other states taking counter measures or presenting claims for compensation. A state’s lack of respect for international law may thus undermine its ability to protect its own interests and collapse the system of global cooperation. Therefore, all states, whether big or small, have a genuine self interest in fully respecting their international obligations and being perceived as a responsible actor on the international stage. In other words, it is in every state’s interest to promote the rule of law at the international level. A vital question for us in this regard is how support and respect for international law can be strengthened. We believe that a key factor is strengthening the sense of ownership of international law. Although a state must explicitly consent to being bound by treaty obligations, we see how important it is to ensure that treaties, which are essentially universal, are developed within a framework where all states have the opportunity to present their views and needs. An open and inclusive negotiating process will serve to strengthen all states’ ownership of the end product and hopefully lead to increased support and respect for the treaty in question. There are at least two concrete conclusions that can be drawn from this observation. First, there must be an arena, a level playing field, which is accessible for all states. The United Nations provides such an arena and we should all aim at strengthening its role in this respect. Second, all participants must have the opportunity and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the discussions in this arena, so that they can exert a real influence. In this regard, we commend all the parts of the UN that are involved in capacity-building to that end. It is vital that international organisations also respect the rule of law. In Norway’s view, the UN and the Security Council should set an example in this regard by scrupulously adhering to the Charter and international law. Finally, let me say a few words about the Rule of Law Coordination and Resource Group and the Rule of Law Unit. Norway welcomes the establishment of these bodies, with a view to improving coordination and coherence in the UN’s rule of law activities. In our view, these bodies will help to improve the effectiveness of the UN, lead to synergies and reduce duplication of work. We have taken note of the activities carried out so far, with great interest, and we look forward to further steps to implement the Joint Strategic Plan for 2009 – 2011. We also commend the transparency and openness that characterise the work of the two bodies, and encourage them to continue their practice of open consultations with Members States. It is important to ensure that the Rule of Law Unit is provided with the necessary financial and human resources to carry out its important tasks in a proper manner.
**NATO – Turkey Aff Ans

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 1.62 Mb.

Share with your friends: