Modern Age - Fall 2014 - 68

MODERN AGE

a nation-state chooses to accept it. True laws
can be repealed or altered through the consti-
tutional process, but there is no constitution
governing the making of international law.
Yet international legal experts would have
us believe that once a nation-state accepts a
principle of international law, its assent can
never be revoked except through the agree-
ment of all nations. As the Restatement says:
In the international system, law is
observed because of a combination of all
forces, including the unarticulated rec-
ognition by states generally of the need
for order, and of their common interest
in maintaining particular norms and
standards.

For the United States, international law
has no essential validity, but we conform for
the sake of pragmatic convenience. In theory
we, like addicts, believe we are strong enough
to quit at any time; but in practice the junk-
ies of our ruling class feel it would be bad
form to look like we were opting out of the
cocktail party. The internal danger is that
our national sovereignty is under assault by
intimations of international indeterminacy.

I

n 1823 President James Monroe sent his
seventh message to Congress and included
the principles we have come to know as the
Monroe Doctrine. Like any State of the
Union proclamation, the message covers
many topics, with the statements on foreign
policy inserted at different places. The Prin-
ciples of 1823 have been much misused and
little understood. Indeed, the U.S. secretary
of state boasted at a recent meeting of the
Organization of American States that the
Monroe Doctrine is dead. But it is dead only
if the U.S. Constitution is dead.
It is important therefore to reexamine
what Monroe actually said. The catalyst
68

FALL 2014

was this: "The political system of the allied
powers is essentially different . . . from that
of America." He makes no charges against
"the allied powers," nor does he accuse them
of evil designs. The problem with the allied
powers is existential; it is their political sys-
tem itself that is the problem. Their system is
not just different from the system we enjoy
in America-it is essentially different.
Monroe goes on: "This difference proceeds
from that which exists in their respective
Governments." The organization of their
governments contrasts with the governing
system the United States has "achieved by
the loss of so much blood and treasure."
He modestly omits the fact that this loss of
blood included his own and that the Hessian
rifle ball that severed his artery at Trenton
is still imbedded in his shoulder. However,
the contrast he is drawing is between two
"systems"-their system against our system.
The American system works better, because,
as Monroe says, it is a system "under which
we have enjoyed unexampled felicity."
Finally, he gets to the heart of the Monroe
Doctrine: the United States would "consider
any attempt on their part to extend their
system to any portion of this hemisphere
as dangerous to our peace and safety." In
other words, the two systems are incompat-
ible when laid side by side. This is indeed an
extraordinary claim. The U.S. system is an
exception to the rules by which Europe has
been dominated. Monroe's view is that the
difference is so great that its extension to the
Western Hemisphere would be a clear and
present danger to the hemisphere's peace and
security.
What is this difference? Diplomatically,
Monroe refrains from particulars, although
he knows the continental systems intimately.
He was one of a handful of Americans living
at that time with deep experience in interna-
tional affairs. Washington sent him as min-
Modern Age - Fall 2014

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