Modern Age - Fall 2014 - 67

JAMES MONROE AND THE SOURCES OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

it acceded to the 1957 Treaty of Rome, and
Parliament passed the European Communi-
ties Act of 1972. Under articles 2 and 3 of
the ECA, Britain obligated itself to consider
European law as a valid and binding source of
U.K. law. If there is an inconsistency between
U.K. law and European law, the European
law and decisions of the European Court are
paramount, even over sovereign acts of Par-
liament. The pandemic of relativism gushing
from Brussels continues to overthrow Brit-
ain's ancient social customs and sovereignty.
That leaves the United States as the odd
man out in matters of international rela-
tions. While foreign policy analysts usually
discuss international affairs with regard to
specific policy goals, long-term strategy, and
the resolution of conflict, the real problem
is that our system of law causes us to look
at the world differently. For example, we
believe in fair competition and victory for
the winning side, not consensus. Our legal
system is based on an adversarial process,
not the shaping of society. The goal of our
economic system aims for the free market
rather than a planned economy. We believe
that legal precedents should be binding for
the sake of social stability. We believe that
individual property rights are the bulwark
of freedom. We believe that laws should be
responsive to the people, not to a group of
experts. Finally, we don't believe in the valid-
ity of international law.
That last sentence bears repeating. The
United States cannot accept the validity of
international law, and conforms to it only
as a matter of convenience, not obligation.
In contrast, the international community
insists that international law is an obligation,
binding on all nations-even if a particular
nation has not signed or ratified the treaty in
question.
The definitive analysis that defines the rela-
tionship of international law to U.S. law is

a publication of the American Law Institute
entitled Restatement of the Law, Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, that is,
the third edition, completed in 1986. As far
as the United States is concerned, this is the
standard reference work intended for jurists
and lawyers currently practicing in the field.
It is objective, nonpartisan, and nonideologi-
cal. Yet this is what the Restatement says in
trying to come to grips with fantasy:
The international political system is
loose and decentralized. Its principle
components-"sovereign" states-retain
their essential autonomy. There is no
"world government" as the term "gov-
ernment" is commonly understood.
There is no central legislature with gen-
eral law-making authority; the General
Assembly and other organs of the United
Nations influence the development of
international law but only when their
product is accepted by states. There is
no executive institution to enforce law;
the United Nations Security Council has
limited executive power to enforce the
provisions of the Charter and to main-
tain international law generally; within
its jurisdiction, moreover, the Council is
subject to the veto power of its five per-
manent members. . . . There is no internal
judiciary with general, comprehensive
and compulsory jurisdiction; the Inter-
national Court of Justice decides cases
submitted to it and renders advisory
opinions but has only limited compul-
sory jurisdiction.

The term "international law," therefore,
is a contradiction in terms. It is "law" only
by analogy; that is, by comparison with true
law enacted by legislatures responsible to the
people and endowed with the authority to
enforce it. It is "law" only to the extent that
67

Modern Age - Fall 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Modern Age - Fall 2014