The Complexity of Law: International vs. Domestic
In a recent episode of The Daily, legal expert Charlie Savage remarked on the distinction between international and domestic law, particularly in the context of President Trump’s arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. It’s an interesting point, especially when you consider how international law has been scrutinized lately—like during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s response to recent violence.
The obstacles to enforcing international laws are significant. Countries like Russia and China, which aren’t exactly paragons of virtue, sit at the helm of organizations meant to uphold these laws. And frankly, it’s tricky to articulate why such laws should carry any weight. If there’s no higher moral standard, it seems like a convoluted game, where stronger nations enforce rules only when it benefits them.
Recently, the documentary “Nuremberg” offered a deep dive into post-World War II attempts to hold Nazis accountable for war crimes. It raises the question: had the Allies simply executed those responsible, would anyone have really questioned it? The Allies’ goal, however, was different—they aimed to signify that the Nazis’ behavior was not just typical wartime conduct; it was something far more sinister.
Arriving at the verdict in the Nuremberg Trials was no small feat. There was no legal framework to lean on, and as early characters in the film indicate, such a situation was unprecedented. The assertion that one nation can’t dictate another’s laws complicates matters, especially when those legal foundations are yet to be established.
Everyone recognized that the Germans had crossed a major line, but how do you convict someone when no applicable law exists? The Nuremberg Trials aimed to lay down the principle that universal norms should guide all nations.
If law is merely a temporary construct, it follows that “possibilities” create “rights.” To transcend this transactional view of morality, we seem to need a higher authority—some sort of legislator. Secular arguments often suggest that natural law can arise from nature itself, as pointed out in David Noble’s work.
This brings us to a key issue: Can humanists claim rights that are separate from other animals when those rights appear to be based solely on human transactions? The belief in natural law provides more stability compared to subjective human interpretations of law. But humanists face a challenge in explaining where this natural law comes from. Christians, on the other hand, argue that God established these laws, imprinting natural law on our hearts—a claim that humanists may find hard to accept.
In essence, there are indeed two types of law, but not necessarily in the international and domestic framework we often think of. Under both categories, we grapple with the concepts of natural law, which appeals to universality, and positive law, which responds to social changes. The latter assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that societies are evolving rather than degrading.
From a Christian perspective, there’s something unique that secular viewpoints struggle to offer. Because God reveals Himself, this revelation allows us to discern right from wrong. It provides insight into both our dignity and our potential for wrongdoing. Fair laws—whether international or domestic—serve to protect the former while addressing the latter without resorting to brute force.
