newYou can listen to Fox's news articles!
For many years, the US has suffered a great deal of cross-border effects of human trafficking by Mexican cartels. From the opioid crisis driven by fentanyl to the broader public safety issues arising from cartel-stimulated crime and violence, American communities are to bear the brunt of this transnational tragedy. This is sad, but it's not new.
We are used to seeing this as a domestic issue, but we are also violating international law by allowing the Mexican government to inflict harm that emanates from the US and her citizens.
By causing great harm to the United States and its citizens originating from Mexico, the Mexican government is violating international law by not curbing criminal enterprises at the heart of illegal human trafficking. A careful analysis of international legal principles, state liability, and treaty obligations reveals that Mexico ignores its obligation to prevent harm that originates from the territory (International Law Commission, 2001).
Bipartisan bill promises more resources at ports to combat fentanyl smuggling and speeds up waiting times
At the heart of this argument is the principle of state responsibility for conduct carried out by non-state actors. According to an article by the International Law Commission on State Liability for International Tort, a state may be liable if it is not possible to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm to other states (International Law Commission, 2001).
A member of a Mexican drug cartel armed with a rifle was arrested this week on the Texas side of the tropical border, authorities said. (Texas DPS)
In the case of Mexican cartels, the Mexican government has not exercised due diligence to reduce the activity of these organizations despite having both the capacity and the obligation to do so (Cassese, 2005). When criminal activities such as drugs and human trafficking are of great harm to American citizens, due diligence principles require Mexico to take concrete action to mitigate these risks.
Ironically, one of the most famous cases of implementation of this principle occurred at the northern border in arbitration of trail smelters between the United States and Canada before World War II.
Furthermore, international law supports the principle of non-intervention, prohibiting the state from allowing its territory to be used as a launch pad for activities that harm another state.
The original Corfu Channel Case emphasizes that state obligations will not make their territory a conduit for external attacks (International Court of Justice) [ICJ]1949). By allowing Mexican cartels to operate with relative immunity, Mexico allows for situations in which its soil becomes a safe shelter for criminal elements that directly damage America and her citizens.
If robust security measures fail to implement and implement, Mexico has waived its responsibility to prevent international harm.
Mexico's international obligations are further illuminated through participation in several important treaties designed to combat organized crime across borders. As a signature of the UN treaty against the United Nations Multinational Organized Crime (Palermo Treaty), Mexico has explicitly committed to enacting measures to combat organized criminal groups, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and human smuggling (UN, 2000).
Similarly, treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotics (1961) and the Illegal Transport Convention on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (1988) impose legal obligations on Member States to control and prevent the illegal drug trade (UN, 1961, UN, 1988).
Mexico has long violated these international commitments by inadequately enforcing domestic laws against cartels and not disrupting cross-border networks. This shortage is more than just administrative oversight. This represents a fundamental failure to support the rule of law on an international scale, and directly contributes to the crisis plaguing the American community.
The US Border Patrol after the agent was shot by a Mexican cartel member while patrolling in Fronton, Texas last week. (Texas Department of Public Safety)
The cartel is strong, and even the de facto governments in some parts of Mexico this does not exempt Mexico from liability under international law. The due diligence doctrine believes that the state must take all reasonable measures in consideration of its ability to prevent harm from non-state actors.
For more information about Fox News, click here
In this regard, the continued spread of cartel activities and the devastating impact on American society indicate that Mexico does not meet this minimal care. Rather than viewing these challenges as justifications for omission, they should serve as catalysts to collaborate towards a more effective solution.
Furthermore, the specific effects of cartel trafficking and violence on U.S. communities cannot be ignored. The fentanyl epidemic – a crisis primarily fueled by precursor chemicals and production methods associated with Mexican cartels – is the incredible human victims (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention) [CDC]2020) and tense public resources across the United States (Drug Enforcement Bureau) [DEA]2021).
If robust security measures fail to implement and implement, Mexico has waived its responsibility to prevent international harm.
In addition to the loss of life, the economic and social costs associated with illegal drug trafficking highlight the need for urgent action. By allowing it to exploit its territory as a hub for these activities, Mexico not only compromises domestic security, but also contributes to a broader pattern of multinational harm that violates established norms of international conduct.
Click here to get the Fox News app
It is therefore clear that the Mexican government is violating international law by failing to control cartel-related activities under the established principles of national responsibility, the doctrine of due diligence, and obligations incorporated into international treaties signed by Mexico itself (Palermo Treaty of 2000, 2000, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961).
The challenge remains, but failure to act decisively against the cartel constitutes a violation of both the spirit of international law and the letter of international law, with serious consequences for American citizens. Being responsible for these cross-border harms is not merely a matter of legal principles. It is an urgent duty to protect public safety and to support the integrity of international legal order.
For more information about Ken Cuccinelli, click here
