International Law Enforcement

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by ExpectantlyIronic, Apr 7, 2010.

  1. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    The problem of international terrorism requires a new approach. No satisfactory answer has yet been given to the question of how a nation should respond when attacked or under threat by organized and effuse international terrorists. Ideally, nations would work together to root out the criminal elements and end the threat, but things have not proved so easy as a consequence of the shelter offered terrorists by failed states and unstable or weak regimes. Other related issues of sovereignty have further proved a difficulty in dealing with terrorism. The situation seems grim.

    It would seem that organized crime at an international level, requires organized law enforcement at an international level. Much like the American Federal Bureau of Investigation was created to deal with interstate crime within America, and international law enforcement body seems called for to deal with the problems facing a shrinking planet. I have no illusions that creating such a body would be easy, or even only a little difficult. The difficulties concerning oversight, limits of authority, the need for international unanimity, etc; are immense. The payoff in terms of international security and diffusing and preventing international conflict, though, are to my mind worth overcoming the difficulties.

    One immediate problem I will address concerns the apparent need for an international legislature to oversee such an agency. There is the United Nations, and there are international laws, but neither were designed with such a law enforcement body in mind, and the creation of a new international legislature would face hurdles perhaps too great to be overcome, is unnecessary, and I question its desirability at this time. As such, it seems best that that the proposed agency be created by an international treaty, which would lay down a very specific mission for it, which would be to bring international terrorists to justice. Furthermore, the treaty could create an oversight body to ensure the agency would not act outside the authority specifically granted it.

    Some might contend this constitutes the creation of a world government or portends it. Such fears would be unfounded as the agency would not be equipped to fight a conventional war, nor be given authority to do anything outside the realm of combating international terrorism. It would exist only at the behest of the sovereign nations that brought it into existence, and they would then have no more power as a united entity than they had prior to its formation. The possibility of a world government cannot be rid of by nations simply being uncooperative with one another, as the potential for cooperation to such ends would remain in any case, so opposition to cooperation towards desirable ends seems unfounded.

    In any case, I doubt this will be a popular idea, but it seems to me to be a long time due.
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2010

  2. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    You already point out the fundamental problems of such an agency: Under whose authority should it be? Under the UN's? If that's the case, most civilized nations would likely accept it, but certainly not the US, and then it would be useless. Who would be paying for it? The members, sure, but as in case of the UN, it might turn out to be a less profitable organization for the US, and thus, they will deny payment.

    The other problem would be the law they abide to: The respective national law? Then it would be useless, since the national law of ruthless tyrannies could easily sabotage its purposes, and the remaining free countries will hardly accept a superiority over their respective judical systems. For good reasons, probably.

    Maybe the fate of the International Court gives a good example for what such an idea leads to -- respected and supported by the civilized world minus the US, but basically useless, due to US sabotage and way too slow enforcement.
  3. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I proposed that it be created under a treaty that lays down the specifics of its operation and thus what laws it would be enforcing, and as you said, the signatory nations would have to provide it with funding and manpower. Due to this not empowering a legislative body of any sort, I think my government and countrymen would be more receptive to it than to proposals involving empowering the UN and the such. In any case, it would certainly require trust that signatory nations abide by the treaty they signed even when they consider it undesirable, and that may be too much to ask; especially of nations too powerful to be forced to abide in any manner. Still, I can conceive of such problems being overcome. The trick would be to get nations to identify the agency with themselves and their interests, and if it exists only to combat international terrorism, that may not be insurmountably difficult to do in the United States.
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2010
  4. Diederick

    Diederick Registered Member

    I'm not really into this field but, doesn't Interpol pretty much cover this?

    We don't want another NATO.
  5. Nevyrmoore

    Nevyrmoore AKA Ass-Bandit

    Yeah, I was thinking of Interpol when I saw this.

    Could someone please inform us as to how this idea and Interpol differ?
  6. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    Reading through, it seems like a neccesary and decent idea. I think it would only work well if it had the support of the larger nations like, us, canada, china and UK. Civilian oversight would be a decent idea to make sure the force doesn't get power hungry. Ideas are just that though, ideas. Until people get over a fear of a world government, and until nation leaders start operating with the nation's and world's best interest instead of their own, I can't see a unified national law enforcement force happening easily.
  7. MAgnum9987

    MAgnum9987 Do What Thou Wilt

    This is a little different from Interpol. Interpol has many restraints on it.

    Quote Wikipedia
    As you can see, Interpol does not do actual work and acts rather as a liaison between different agencies and holds data and information on international crime.

    EI wants an agency that makes arrests, holds criminals, and does law enforcement work, rather than just help with it.

    And thats a good idea. A well planned, worded, and thought out constitution for such an agency could allow it to work out. It needs to state what the organization can and can't do, what its agents can and cannot do, and outline its structure so that it can work effectively.

    I believe it could be modeled following both the CIA and FBI, in the way it acts internationally.
  8. Mistyshari

    Mistyshari New Member

    International Law enforcement is a law. It is a set of rules and regulation.It predicts the exchanging the import or export for one country to another.This law is used for our security of plane.
  9. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    After reading the quote from wiki it seems to me that a body like Interpol is what is needed to deal with terrorism. Meaning, that such an agency will act as a liaison between the anti-terrorist agencies of the member countries, providing communications and database assistance, if not more.

Share This Page