Why America Does Not Suscribe to External LawsStudent’s NameInstructor’s NameClassDateInternational Relations Despite the fact that the United States is at the forefront in advocating for human rights and democracy throughout the world, it does not comply with international agreements or subscribe to any higher form of law. The decision by the US not to comply with international law and agreements can be attributed to a number of factors. The first reason why the United States of America does not subscribe to any higher form of law or comply with international courts is because of American exceptionalism; the belief that America is superior and unique compared to any other country. Based on this ideology, the American legal system is way better than any other legal system in the world (Forsythe et al. 23). Therefore, subscribing to foreign laws would diminish America in the eyes of other countries and threaten its position as a world leader.
The other reason why America does not subscribe to international courts revolves around the belief that the country has a defined duty to promote freedom throughout the world. In fulfillment of this mandate, the United States has initiated wars against countries suspected of sponsoring state terrorism without satisfying the requirements of the just war theory. Hence, the US feels that subscribing to foreign laws would make the country a target because of its previous military engagements. In conclusion, the failure to subscribe to any higher form of law does not taint the image of the United States as a world leader. The country’s image would not be tainted because other countries with nuclear capabilities like Russia, China, and India are also not members of the International Criminal Court. This ensures that the country is not vulnerable as far as its ability to respond to external threats is concerned. Work citedForsythe, D.P., Charles J. Mach, David P. Forsythe, and Patrice C. McMahon. American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: U.S. Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and World Order. Taylor & Francis, 2016.
Sitemap 10-7. US Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and World Order (1)
Since the beginning of 2013, the US has been accused of intervening militarily in Iran’s nuclear talks with world powers. As reported by The New Republic: http://on.ten.co.uk/news/2011/11/25/united-states-lobby-to-defend-nuclear-kuffaris-as-re-a-previous-war/>. This new report on Iran may, as I have argued previously, provide yet more evidence to point out that the US has now engaged in a war against Iran that is neither justified under international law nor, indeed, a proper war. In March 2011, it was reported that an airstrike conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Yemen in November 2009 was aimed at killing an Iranian nuclear scientist in retaliation for a US missile strike. According to an article in the Sun published by the Washington Examiner :“According to a report in Iran’s daily Dardanek News, the Sana’a-based JIRA Al-Quds ballistic missile unit targeted another Iranian research director, identified as Saeed Zayed and ‘Hajib, of the Revolutionary Guards’ faction and an Iranian-backed intelligence firm with close ties to Iran.” The official Times reported that the strike carried out on the JIRA Al-Quds nuclear research laboratory is also reportedly the first-ever US military airstrike that targets an official member of the Revolutionary Guards. According to the CIA , however, in 2008 CIA officers told the Washington Times that the agency was still engaged in an “unprecedented” campaign to hunt down a prominent member of the military who had been reported to have been involved in a strike against al-Qaeda. The CIA reported that in late April 2009 the group “wanted the public and foreign intelligence services” to be informed about the attack by “allowing the US to gather intelligence about any ‘enemy’ in order to identify and counter terrorist or non-terrorist actors. […] The information must be transmitted back to the State Department and relayed to the foreign intelligence service of the Islamic Republic of Iran, for use against other states. […] It should be relayed by all nations against any person or group in the country concerned and to all other intelligence agencies.”Although the Times article was initially reported by the Sun as “an attempt to target a US official who was reportedly linked to an Iranian terrorist group in the Gulf,” it went out on to say: “At issue in this instance relates to the alleged “previous-war” US war with Iran, in which the United States, at least in public opinion, has been accused of conducting a ground operation based on accusations of a preemptive strike on Tehran by Iran’s proxies, the Revolutionary Guards. It seems to be the latest instance of the Times of us trying to make a case for that kind of action by the United States, under what is supposed to be a ‘normal’ civilian procedure. On page 10 of this article, it states: “…according to experts, it was the ‘pre
njk operation to attack two security officials on a bus, near the base of the Revolutionary Guards General Staff Headquarters. • And, on page 11 of this article: It is worth noting that the “military” department in the United States has been accused of a premonitory military action against the United States in the late 1970s. It’s also true that in April 2006, the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives asked for the Secretary of State to consider whether or not a preemptive strike against the United States by Iran could be justified under international law and, perhaps, under military doctrine.․ This article appears to be more specific in stating that “an attack (such as this) must be justified by a ground operation” based on “the allegations of a preemptive act (as outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the USA)” and as stating that “no state, a group, or an organization shall engage in such a violation of the United Nations Charter” (Article 2: Section 2 of the United Nations Constitution). To make matters worse, it appears that the US still maintains that the strike against the Iranian
”is justified by a ground action.‥ In addition, since the Pentagon was responsible for the actual attack on a US Air Force aircraft and the operation was not directed against Iran, a preemptive strike would be appropriate only when the State Department, the Pentagon & the State Department are at odds with the State Department, the military, and the international community. As the Washington Post describes the situation in this way: The Pentagon is currently preparing to use the strike against Iran, although no specific orders have been given in advance for the operation so far. However, military and domestic intelligence agents from the United States, including at least four members of the Intelligence Community who were briefed on the mission have sent information to Secretary of Defense James R. Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, President of the U.S. Naval Academy, who requested to know whether the U.S. military was planning for either a preemptive strike or a ground invasion on a US Air Force aircraft if the Iran strike “goes against our security interests.” The defense secretary would not give such exact military or technical instructions. To be clear, both Trump and Tillerson are on record as saying they wouldn’t order a ground strike (despite threats from some experts that they might) against a potential Iranian military facility in the United States. But at least it is clear that if the US were in the Middle East, in the region of the Persian Gulf, in the Balkans, etc., the fact that any such air attack might occur would likely have a much higher probability of a catastrophic and significant humanitarian crisis with even further effects. It’s now clear that Tillerson is trying to manipulate the US in a very bad way, as illustrated by this New York Times op-ed piece: The Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives has asked the secretary of state for information about an operation to strike the Iranian Consulate & Central American and B.W.F. facilities in the Persian Gulf and Central American states, which are now operational. This report, written by two reporters for the magazine, provides information that contradicts earlier rumors among military analysts claiming that the US has been engaging in a major campaign of preemptive strike. The three journalists from the New York Times, Tom Llamas, Scott Shane, and David Ignatius were on the trip to Iran and were unable even to ask Tillerson if he had any information about an air strike. On the two occasions where they had the opportunity, however, they were denied an answer (e.g., after asking Tillerson to clarify that the Air Force would not use conventional “air strikes” against the Iranians or to deny that Iran had carried out “any type or practice of terror”). In one case they were asked whether the US had authorized the use of cruise missiles against the consulate and for several weeks before they were told that the American Embassy was in effect on its mission in the Persian Gulf. When they responded that they had been informed, they were told that it was in the ‘security interests’ on board for that mission (an action the Times reported did not comply with Article 2.1 of the Charter of the USA).[28] They are also asked if the US was in any way under an attack “withdrawed, ordered, or prohibited from doing, or continuing to do, any acts that target the U.S.” (emphasis added): “Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other senior US State Department officials told members of Congress that the United States has not formally declared a ”
” war against Iran and that any attack in the United States or its military would be “without any sort of justification.””
For those who havenorwho have, they can read the excerpt above, which has been quoted repeatedly and which has been cited on a number of occasions. The quote comes in response to questions about the intelligence that was provided by U.S. intelligence professionals to Congress regarding the Tehran missile test, which was conducted by a US Air Force F-15 pilot. That quote is, in summary, a blatant attack on a United States aircraft that only appears in the second paragraph when they are asked about a potential nuclear war with Iran. I have not yet read the paragraph of the Times article and, once I do, I will share it with many others.
One of the questions that the Times sought to ask Tillerson when he appeared for an interview with them was:
Will the President and Vice President run the United States?
Tillerson: I wouldn’t say