Though I do professionally study international law and American foreign policy, I have no particular opinions about what happened with OBL. Happier, on balance, to be in a world without him than a world with him, which puts me in approximately the range of Russell Arben Fox. Nor does it seem to me that there's much to be gained from making terrorism a focus of foreign policy rather than intelligence policy; in that sense, I'm in Matt Yglesias' ballpark. Nor does bin Laden's death resolve anything about Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
The one very surprising thing to me, as an observer of international law, is that no one seems to think there are any questions to be raised by the US conducting a targeted military strike in Pakistan. I haven't been paying attention to the nature of military cooperation agreements between the US and Pakistan, but it looks to me like a classic violation of state sovereignty.* Normally this sort of thing would be a big deal. Will keep an eye on Opinio Juris to see if this comes up, and may do a little research myself if the jus post bellum paper progresses sufficiently today.
Oh yes, and: snark I can get behind:
"Remember kids, that this is a great opportunity to espouse your political beliefs and why your party should take credit for today's news!"
(via Ken Tremendous/Mike Schur's twitter)
*Especially as the US appears not to have given Pakistan advance notice. There are good reasons not to, of course--it just seems weird no one has commented on this.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment