Scoop: World Poll: Intl. Law Ahead of National Interest

icon gravatar.comwww.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0911/S00224.htm
sent by Sparrows since 13 days 23 hours 14 minutes, published about 13 days 7 hours 26 minutes
A poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org finds that most people in 17 of 21 nations surveyed say their government should abide by international law and reject the view that governments are not obliged to follow such laws when they conflict with the national interest. Most respondents in two out of three nations polled are also confident that the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, would treat their country fairly and impartially, the WPO poll shows. The poll, conducted in 21 nations from around the world asked respondents which of two statements is closest to their own view. The first statement said, "Our nation should consistently follow international laws. It is wrong to violate international laws, just as it is wrong to violate laws within a country": the second said, "If our government thinks it is not in our nation's interest, it should not feel obliged to abide by international laws." On average, across all nations polled, 57% said that their country should put a higher priority on international law than national interest. WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,202 respondents in 21 nations that comprise 64 percent of the world's population.
tags: wpo, intl law v natl interest, world court
2 commentscategory: Legal System/Rule of Law karma: 172

comments

  1. #1    If we [America] have gone global, then it is only fitting that we fry people that do bad things, at the Hague. Since it does not appear that we can do it ourselves.

    Now that I have made that statement. Where is the Hague now that Iraq is supposed to be over? Maybe, they (the people at the Hague) see the killing of a "puppet" govt along with its innocent civilians, as no really bad thing happening at all. I see Kissinger and Rummy baby still walking around and talking also. Not to speak of Bush and Cheney. Sooooooooo, where's the Hague?

    To make my point, are we doing the right thing by pushing our national rights out as far as the Hague to get something done? And how many local citizens could afford that kind of court cost w/travel and nightly expenses included? Just a thought!
    written by Sparrows since 13 days 23 hours 5 minutesSparrows
  2. #2    Are we yet signatories to the ICC? Bush had Bolton UN-sign the Rome documents and Obama pledged that he would sign US up, but did he yet?
    Of course we are subject to international laws that are formed by treaties that we've ratified. Those laws become domestic law, in fact, "The Highest Law of the Land". And Cheney and Rummy should fear the American Justice system more than the ICC, if we weren't so screwed up. For one thing, the ICC can't levy the death penalty on them, we can.
    It would be better for US and our reputation in the world if we prosecuted them ourselves. Our Criminal Justice system used to be the high standard to which many other countries aspired. That has been badly tarnished, most recently by the Bushies (and if Obama escalates Afghanistan, he's on the bubble too). For our own sake and for the sake of restoring US as a positive model, we must hold at least the principle architects of our West Asian attrocities to justice.
    written by CwV since 13 days 22 hours 50 minutesCwV
closed comments
Who has negatively flagged this story?


who are we
code: license, download  |  images license Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional    Valid CSS!   [Valid RSS]