Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

but we respect them so far as they do not conflict with the commands of Congress or the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has also recognized the international rule that a state has power and authority over criminal acts committed within its territory, and the constitutional authority of the US Government to permit the trial of one of its military personnel consistent with this rule and its treaty obligations. In the case of Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 529, (1957) the court said, "A sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders, we find no constitutional or statutory barrier to the provision as applied here."

[ocr errors]

In reality, the degree that international law will impact on military operations will be closely related to the degree of crisis or pressure surrounding a particular situation.

A Nonintegrated System-A brief examination of some relationships between states will serve to explain the operations and process of the international legal system. This system is not as integrated as is the legal system of the US or most other nations. That is, it does not have an executive agency, a legislature, a court system and a police force working and operating simultaneously. Moreover, it does not have these organs in easily recognizable form like the President, Congress and Supreme Court of the US. It is, instead, a process, sometimes resulting in "legislation" (treaties or agreements), or in enforcement and implementation (war crimes trials), or in adjudication (International Court of Justice or claims arbitration). It must be remembered that the manner in which this process operates, including its effectiveness, will be determined by the intent of individual states. Normally, such intent will be controlled by the degree of pressure placed upon the state or the national importance of a particular situation. This does not mean, however, that the activities, rights and duties of states are not interconnected and interdependent-just as they are in a national society. What it does mean is that, frequently, there is no formal governmental structure operative in the international legal and social process.

Noncrisis Relations-In areas of interstate relations where there is little or no pressure on a particular state to defend itself or to maintain a particular stance or policy, the international process generally controls the conduct and actions of states. In other words, where the interests of most states are the same, or a compromise on conflicting viewpoints can be reached, there is no competition or fighting; there is no crisis. As a result, the states work together toward a common goal, their product resulting in international agreements or “legislation." The International Postal Convention is an example. All states are so desirous and needful of communication by mail that a system for insuring the free passage of first class mail between states was worked out. It is sufficiently effective that while hostilities existed between the US and the Peoples Democratic Republic of Vietnam, first class mail still moved between the two

countries. The desperate need for air traffic with safety and certainty was also accepted by most nations. Their cooperative actions resulted in the Warsaw and Chicago Conventions that regulate international air traffic. Cooperative effort in this area was so strong that nations were able to respond and address the threat that aircraft hijacking presented to international air traffic. This is an example of executive action or implementation of control in a new and critical area of state relations. Security treaties are another example of primary concern to many nations throughout the world. Yet their effective operation and viability require rules for the stationing, passage or usage by forces of one nation in the territory of another nation. This need was so basic to the crisis of security that Status of Forces Agreements have been negotiated. The general rules of the agreements have been continually repeated and evidence a growing consensus of nations on the treatment of foreign military forces.

Pressure Relations-Some areas of state relations inherently present competition and conflicting policies. Yet, the ultimate goals of states in these areas are so important to the continued effective existence of the states that rules are articulated. While these rules do not control state action, they do present strong guidelines for states to follow. And, while states will occasionally avoid these guides due to competing pressures, states seldom disregard such guides. The first area is that of international trade. Economic intercourse among nations is so basic to their survival on any reasonable level of life, that states have established goals which serve as strong guides for international trade. While these guides do not control the clear pressure of economic competition, they do limit state action within certain recognized parameters. The primary expression of such guiding rules is the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). The International Monetary Fund and the various international banks are other examples. A second area is that of regional cooperation. Certain geographical groupings of states have necessitated states in the groups to work and live together although there may be many diverse political, social and economic goals between the states. The overriding need for cooperation among the states in the western hemisphere resulted in the formation of the Organization of American States (OAS). This body and its charter present guidelines limiting state action. It does not control the action of the US in its relations with countries of South America, but it clearly has established rules which limit and define such actions.

Crisis Relations-Finally, there are areas of state relations that defy control or limitation. Here, there is a state or group of states whose national needs and expectations are in direct conflict with those of other states. Each state considers its needs so great that compromise is not possible and the competing states are thus in a status of crisis in their relations. In the extreme, this crisis erupts into armed conflict as the only apparent method of preserving the political, social or economic life

of the state. Yet even in these areas, states attempt to limit conduct and often can find shared values upon which to build an agreement limiting the crisis of competing demands. These attempts are in some degree based on the fear of completely uncontrolled violence. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a good example. National security needs forbade the total destruction and outlawing of nuclear weapons: the fear of nuclear holocaust mandated the attempt to limit the means of nuclear warfare. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 provide a second example. Again, national and international security did not permit the total abolition of war. The fear that inhuman violations would run wild made it necessary to place some limitation on the methods of warfare and the treatment of noncombatants. It would be contrary to reality to argue that such treaties always control state actions, or even that they provide firm limits to state action. They do provide definitely expressed goals for state action and do function even in war to guide the conduct of states and individuals, thereby limiting the violence. Thus, while some types of modern weapons are not controlled and only vague limits are established for their use, an international standard or goal is provided against which state action can be judged by society. In this sense international legal rules are the expression of commonly recognized goals of the international community.

Sanctions-Generally, persons point to an effective police force as the sanction behind any law. In reality, however, the efficacy of any sanction lies much deeper. In the international community, the only apparent sanctions, short of the use of armed force, are those which are based on self-interest. Where there is a consensus or mutuality of self-interest among states, the sanction is effective. The greater the consensus the lesser is the need for a sanction and the more effective is the particular legal rule. Here consensus or shared values and expectations operate as a "sanction" even in the absence of a police force. Conversely, as the degree of consensus is reduced, the less effective is any peaceful sanction and the more likely is the use of armed force as a sanction. However, even then, the disputants, for other self-interest reasons, may refuse to use armed force and reach a solution though both are in total disagreement on the specific issue. Examples are the use of cease fires, armistices, and even arbitration. The possible loss of mail communication, air traffic or security enforcement have proven to be most effective sanctions. The fear of retaliatory tariffs is a sufficient sanction to force nations to stay within certain limiting rules for international trade even if they have not controlled national tariff policies. The goal to limit human suffering in armed conflict receives some sanction from public condemnation of state action taken in disregard of human suffering and dignity.

That self-interest and the consensus of self-interest is the reality of any effective sanction can be seen by a brief look at the US domestic legal system. The consensus for stop signs at interesections is so nearly

unanimous in US society that this law is easily enforced. The police and the courts receive social cooperation and the legislatures are supported in its enactments. Laws regulating the use of marijuana, on the other hand, have a much smaller degree of consensus. As a result, the sanction is very ineffective, although such laws have the same police force, the same courts and the same legislatures as do the laws on stop signs. While coercive sanctions such as police and courts do provide some degree of effectiveness to laws, it would seem that consensus of selfinterest provides the real efficacy and viability to legal rules. It is the coercive actions which may give efficiency to sanction; it is the degree of consensus of self-interest which provides the sanction. In this view, the international legal system can be said to have real sanctions, even though the efficiency of such sanctions is hampered greately by the lack of adequate coercive measures.

Summary-In recent years the world has been radically changed by tremendous growth in population and technology. This growth and an enlarged interdependency have caused a greater need for states to relate and deal with each other which in turn has made mandatory a much greater cooperation among states. Before people or states can cooperate, they must recognize the existence of shared values and expectations so as to establish norms of conduct which reflect the consensus upon which cooperative and conforming conduct can best exist. That is, states must be able to expect and to rely on certain conduct by other states in certain given circumstances. To achieve this mutuality of expectations requires a consensus, a recognized common interest of national goals and policies. The international legal system is the process or system used by states to determine their common interest and mutual expectations. International law is the expression, in rule form, of such expectations and self-interests. In this manner international law is a tool for maintaining existing levels of world order and peace and for maximizing an even greater degree of world order, peace and human dignity.

LEGAL STATUS OF MILITARY FORCES

Since the end of World War II, the US has continually stationed many of its armed forces in foreign countries. The legal status of these forces has depended generally on the mission assigned to the forces. These missions have varied from direct combat in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, to occupation of defeated enemy territory in Japan and Germany, to implementation of security alliances in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to training of forces and civic actions in South America. In the past, US forces operated, frequently, as the policeman to restore and maintain order. More and more their role or mission has changed from such direct action to a mission of preparation and training. Depending on the general mission assigned the military

force, their legal status, in situations not involving armed conflict, is determined by a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a Military Assistance Advisory Agreement (MAAG) or a Military Mission Agreement (Mission).

MAAG AND MISSION

Normally, a Mission or a MAAG is part of a country team composed of military and state department personnel. The U.S. Ambassador coordinates the entire US effort in that particular country to include the political, military, and economic programs. The purpose of the Mission is to assist in the continued well being of the foreign state, consequently the individual members of the Mission generally have a type of diplomatic immunity. In general, they may not be brought before a foreign court in a civil action for injury, damages or contract which occurred while they were performing their official duties. Most agreements provide that individual members may not be brought before a criminal court for trial. The only sanction that the foreign country has for crimes committed is to order that the individual be removed from the country. Under such rules, the Mission can operate effectively in cooperation with the host state without fear of the goal being thwarted by over-caution and reluctance to act on the part of Mission members. The military goals of these organizations generally involve the training of the military forces of the host country and support to civil action. The purpose of such training is to provide the country with its own capability of controlling internal disturbances and of protecting itself against any external threat. In civil action, they train the personnel of the foreign country in skills necessary for the internal growth of the country. Particular missions would include assistance in training local police forces, advising on construction of roads and rail transportation facilities and assistance in construction of sanitation facilities. Normally, the number of military personnel is small and their role is advisory. The difference between a MAAG and Mission is historical. Those set up before the Second World War were called "Missions" while the MAAG designation is more recent in origin. Where the US program was originally called a Mission, that name has generally been retained.

SOFA-At the conclusion of the Second World War, a new factual situation faced states in their relations with each other. Because of security alliances, it became necessary for the US to station military forces in foreign countries. The differences from prior situations were that these forces would be large in number and equipment, large numbers of civilian employees and dependents would accompany the forces, the presence of these forces would be for an indefinite or permanent period, and the forces would have a direct military mission during peacetime. While international rules existed for the status of forces in occupation or wartime, no clear rules existed for this new type of

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »