The current crisis is of course the violence in Libya. The one before that was eastern Ukraine, which isn't to say that particular problem has been resolved, but we're currently more interested in other things. Falling between them was a fuss between China and Vietnam over an oil platform being built in what the latter insists is its territorial waters, which isn't so much a distinct crisis as it is the most recent flareup of an ongoing dispute that's plagued the region like herpes.
It's a problem with serious policy implications and long-term consequences, yet I only found out about it a few days ago, 'cause Fox News was on the TV nearest my treadmill at the gym. The incident was naturally being used as further proof that the Obama administration had no coherent foreign policy plan, America's weakness was emboldening its enemies, countries like China or Russia will continue to flout international law until someone sends them a firm message, and so forth. The panel - there's always a panel, Fox is always ready to interpret the news for you so you don't have to draw your own conclusion - stopped short of actually proscribing policy, and didn't explain what firm actions the US should take to keep China from stepping outside its boundaries. Maybe park our navy outside a Chinese port and threaten to bombard it? A missile strike or two? Obama will surely know what to do.
It got me thinking, mostly morose thoughts about how international governance can be easily spoiled by a few brutes who refuse to play by the rules everyone else has agreed to, and how little these normative and legal regimes can do to stop transgressors. We - mainly the countries in the West - build something like the UN that's supposed to resolve international conflicts, and act sort of like a world government, yet cringe at the thought of an official world government. We like local government just fine, and are willing to tolerate national governments, but as things scale up, our attitudes change.
If my neighbor is trying to build a well, and according to my documents he's trying to do it on my property, it's not going to be hard for me to resolve the issue. I can show him my property deed and where the lines are drawn, and point out that if he continues he'll be violating the law. If he refuses to stop, I call the police, who can use force to stop him.
If my neighboring country is trying to build a well on what according to international agreement is my property, it's a bit different. I can show him these treaties and the maps and argue that he's violating international law, but he may declare that these treaties are unfair, or inaccurate, or illegitimate. If he refuses to stop... I guess I get to decide how far I'm willing to go to try and stop him. If I'm Luxembourg, and my neighbor is the United States, I'm probably not going to be able to stop him at all.
If the neighbors are individuals within a country, we rarely see a flat-out rejection of the law, even if neither party was involved in crafting it. I have no idea who came up with the system used to determine what land I can "own," or who drew the lines that carved out my home property. I don't question the legitimacy of my property lines, they're part of a legal system I was born into, and even though I don't participate in it, I don't mind living under it. I suppose I do have a little say in how it operates if I remember to vote once every so often, assuming the candidates I vote for get elected and happen to make a decision regarding property laws. But it's indirect control at best.
Likewise, I don't quail at the thought of a policeman appearing on my street. It helps that I'm a white male in a white male's country, of course, but even if I weren't, I doubt the notion of a cop stepping in to settle my property dispute would generate the sort of abhorrence we see when we suggest establishing some sort of hard enforcement mechanism for international law.
In short, while some states are keen on the idea of global governance, and are willing to adhere to international agreements, or even let foreign soldiers onto their soil as peacekeepers in emergencies, there is a real reluctance to give international institutions the sort of coercive power necessary to fully govern.
The state-level explanation for this is straightforward. The world we live in is dominated by a number of actors called states, institutions that define themselves as the ultimate legal authority in their respective territories, and claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in their domain. Adding any "higher" laws, or allowing an outside organization to step in with armed forces, undermines this definition and goes against their self-interest (unless they decide it is in their self-interest to abide by this laws or allow foreign forces into their country).
A related argument would be that states play at higher "stakes" than bickering neighbors, and have to be strong enough to repel their rivals, and therefore refuse to weaken themselves by empowering international governments. Or in other words, the world system is anarchical and "help yourself," so states can't afford to create something capable of bringing order to the system or helping themselves and others. I find this explanation particularly unsatisfying.
I prefer to work on the individual or "people" level, states only exist in our minds anyway. From this angle, the explanation for the lack of strong global governance is as follows - I'm not a minority living in a country dominated by a different ethnic group or other demographic, so when I talk about my government or my police, I feel a connection to them. Even if the laws of the land are drawn up in a distant capital, they were made by "my" people, and a few folks from my region were at least in the room when those laws were signed. Police officers are similarly drawn from the cities they protect, making them as much neighbors as they are enforcers of the federal government. In short, I see a lot of myself in the people writing and executing the laws, so I feel like they're looking after my interest, or at least not out to get me.
If we talk about international law, or some sort of global army to enforce the United Nations' decisions, I can't feel so confident. Are people from a culture from the other side of the planet, who grew up hearing different morality tales from a different religion, whose history diverges from mine so many, many centuries ago, really like me? Can I trust them to keep my interests in mind, or are they out to get me? More importantly, if we try to make the UN less dysfunctional by removing the five permanent Security Council members' vetoes, how could I stop the General Assembly from denouncing Israel? Things only get worse when you consider some armed force that could settle things like border disputes - can you really trust someone who doesn't even speak your language?
So this is why right wingnut fears about the New World Order and world government are pretty silly - whether on the individual or national level, not many people are comfortable with the idea. But I think that might change, in time. We've got this wonderful, globalized world, where ideas can flow and diffuse with greater speed and ease than at any point in human history. We had, until recent setbacks, and attempt to spread a particular group of norms that were supportive of regional and international governance. And modern communications have allowed people to connect from all corners of the world, proving that whether they're from the United States or Brazil, Russia or China, people are equally capable of jackassery on the internet.
So maybe there will come a time when we see enough of ourselves in the Hague to give the International Criminal Court some real weight (or maybe even ratify it!). Maybe someday we'll feel comfortable with empowering other countries' soldiers with the authority to use force to keep countries from building platforms where they're not allowed, even if those countries could potentially include us. But we've a ways to go, and in the meantime we're stuck with figuring out how to talk China into voluntarily following an international law it would rather ignore.
