International Legislation?
Carr – Substantive
So what exactly is E.H. Carr’s point? Well, I don’t know. However, what I do know is that Carr is pretty good at fence sitting. As Rebecca Shakespeare pointed out, “It seems like Carr is trying to define a shade of gray.” To which I replied, “No, I think he is just acknowledging that a specific shade gray exists.” But maybe this is just the way of life. Can there truly be a resolution to all things in life? At any rate, this does not diminish the substance that exists within the pages of The Twenty Years’ Crisis and the contribution to international relations, much to the despise of Carr throughout his career.
In any case, I would like to review Carr’s examination of international law. Has international law changed since the publishing of this book and would Carr concede his fundamental assumption that international legislation does not exist (160) in light of the functioning of the United Nations?
So what is Carr’s view of international law?
Yes the United Nations has a general body of legislators known as the General Assembly. In this Assembly every member state has 1 representative to cast a single vote for their nation. Isn’t this process international legislation? Carr says “International agreements are contracts concluded by states with one another in their capacity as subjects of international law, and not laws created by states in the capacity of international legislators.” From this view, I would have to say that the international legislation is more of a reality now then it was in Carr’s time. But, to this extent, what is the point of making laws if there is no authority to make these laws binding? And also, since the laws created by the United Nation cannot be imposed on non-member countries are they not truly international but multilateral?
So what exactly is E.H. Carr’s point? Well, I don’t know. However, what I do know is that Carr is pretty good at fence sitting. As Rebecca Shakespeare pointed out, “It seems like Carr is trying to define a shade of gray.” To which I replied, “No, I think he is just acknowledging that a specific shade gray exists.” But maybe this is just the way of life. Can there truly be a resolution to all things in life? At any rate, this does not diminish the substance that exists within the pages of The Twenty Years’ Crisis and the contribution to international relations, much to the despise of Carr throughout his career.
In any case, I would like to review Carr’s examination of international law. Has international law changed since the publishing of this book and would Carr concede his fundamental assumption that international legislation does not exist (160) in light of the functioning of the United Nations?
So what is Carr’s view of international law?
- “International law recognizes no court competent to give on issue of law or fact decisions recognized as binding by the community as a whole” (159).
- “International law has no agents competent to enforce observance of the law” (159).
- International law knows only of custom and not of legislation. Thus, international legislation does not yet exist (160).
Yes the United Nations has a general body of legislators known as the General Assembly. In this Assembly every member state has 1 representative to cast a single vote for their nation. Isn’t this process international legislation? Carr says “International agreements are contracts concluded by states with one another in their capacity as subjects of international law, and not laws created by states in the capacity of international legislators.” From this view, I would have to say that the international legislation is more of a reality now then it was in Carr’s time. But, to this extent, what is the point of making laws if there is no authority to make these laws binding? And also, since the laws created by the United Nation cannot be imposed on non-member countries are they not truly international but multilateral?
posted by Holly at 3:37 PM
<< Home