South China Sea 'international law' ruling isn't law.

Paul Gewirtz makes the common error of assuming international law is actually law (“Law can’t solve the South China Sea Conflict” Washington Post 7-13-16).  It is not.  By definition, law is enforceable.  International law, which Mr. Gewirtz repeated refers to as “law” doesn’t possess that fundamental requirement.

International law should be called something else.  This oxymoronic phrase only confuses people and nations by suggesting that such ‘law’ actually means anything other than a optimistic arraignment.   This only perpetuates the unexamined assumption that it possesses some special power.  It has none other than creating unwarranted hope.  

Repeatedly we hear from policy makers about the supreme value of the “rule of law”.  That it should be hour highest aspiration to escape chaos and calamity. 

Unfortunately, the ‘rule of law’ is not the supreme paradigm now governing the behavior of nations, corporations or other global entities like ISIS or Al Qaeda.   The world’s increasing chaos is largely the result of our infatuation with the concept of  ‘national sovereignty’ which is essentially ‘lawlessness between nations’.    It can be functionally defined as the right of any nation to do anything it wants, anytime it wants, to anyone (or any place) it wants .  Especially if it has nuclear weapons or is willing to risk war to get its way.   Examining any global threat trend suggests our trust in this concept is clearly misplaced.

Our mental blunder is assuming ‘sovereignty’ is the proprietorship of nations.  It is not.  It is the fundamental possession of every human being.  Many believe it to be a gift from God.   A means to determine who they want to be associated with and for what purpose.  This is a fundamental aspect of human freedom.   Nations only put limits on it.

If we continue to limit our sovereign powers to the national level where we live and refuse to apply a small portion of it to an authentic world government we will never know peace and our fundamental desire for freedom and security will be perpetually endangered.

National sovereignty assumes each nation is ‘independent’ of other nations.  It is a flawed mental construct that has no useful application in an irreversible and rapidly increasingly interdependent world.