The Slavery of International Rights

Published by Vladimir on the 11th of March 2007.

A Polemic Against International Rights
Despite unprecedented theoretical and empirical evidence that has been gathered over the years, the concept of international rights continues to be a thorn in the side of rational political discourse. The constant use of these ‘rights’ in the justifications of nations, alliances and blocs alike means, unfortunately, that they cannot be avoided, and so it is my intention to examine the premises and logical end to international rights. As I will outline through the course of this essay, the proponents of international rights have fallen for a number of false assumptions, both about the nature of rights and where they come from. If one fully analyses the concept, as we will here, it is rapidly evident that they are neither existent in today’s world nor desirable in tomorrow’s.

What is a Right?
The idealistic conception that the Globalists – the supporters of international rights – have of the international arena is undoubtedly an attractive one at first glance, and it is easy to see why so many are sucked into its well-meaning simplicity. Indeed, on the face of it international rights are difficult to argue against; after all, who could possibly deny someone their freedom? However, this idealism is based on the mistaken premise that international rights are negative – that they only require others to refrain from interfering – but this is far from the case in reality. Rights have two prerequisites in order for them to exist: a law in support of them (whether by written legislation or precedent) and a body capable and willing to enforce that law. While we will go on to show exactly why these two stipulations are needed, it is obvious that if we accept them then all rights must be positive by their very nature – they require that others do something in order for them to exist. If this is true then, as will be shown, it turns the entire Globalist argument on its head

The Hegemonic Bloc
The basis of the anti-Globalist argument is the premise that an international body is required to enforce international rights if they are truly to exist. While it may seem obvious that a law does not truly exist without enforcement, it is nevertheless this key component that the Globalists continue to ignore. The reason an international enforcement body is a prerequisite for international rights is that a right can never exist unless it can be protected, and therefore if a right cannot be protected it cannot be claimed to be an existing right at all. Take, for example, the constant appeals to the right of free speech. At present there is absolutely nothing to prevent one from attacking another over something they said – they are not protected – and so the right of free speech cannot be said to exist. Likewise, if one creates an alliance, there is absolutely nothing to prevent another from immediately destroying it, and so no alliance can be said to have a right to existence. In these examples there would need to be a body capable of preventing anyone from attacking anyone else over matters of speech or over matters of alliance creation, and this requirement can be extended to any right. We can therefore see why such a body is necessary.

Furthermore, this body must be capable of preventing any opposition from opposing its enforcement of these rights, and so for international rights to exist they not only require a body of enforcement, but they require a hegemonic bloc capable and willing to defend them. The simplest way of envisaging this is to look at where such right-enforcing hegemonic blocs already exist among nations – alliances. Inside alliances rights can generally be said to exist because there are laws in place and a strict hegemonic hierarchy to protect them, and so if anyone, whether an individual or a group, seeks to violate a right protected by law, they can be prevented from doing so. From this example it is clear what is necessary for rights to exist, and so it is relatively easy to take that onto the global scale and recognise that for such a hierarchy to exist in the international arena it would require, just like inside alliances, a politically, and thus militarily, hegemonic bloc. However, since there has never been a hegemonic bloc either capable or willing to enforce international laws, it is correct to say that there are not, and have never been, international rights.

Rights as Undesirables
It is self-evident, then, that international rights do not exist and cannot exist without enforcement; however, it is further argued by the Globalists that where international rights do not exist they should, and this is again due to their misconception of rights as negative. As already shown, rights require a hegemonic bloc willing to enforce law in order to exist; but furthermore, it is neither a desirable nor sustainable situation in the international arena that such a bloc would exist. In order for international rights to exist, this hegemonic bloc would not only have to intervene in matters of its own affairs where a law was broken, but also in matters that do not involve it at all: between nations, alliances and blocs independent of the hegemonic bloc. As should become increasingly clear to the reader at this point, what international rights truly require, and therefore what they inherently symbolise, is an international military dictatorship. The hegemonic bloc would need to claim sovereignty over the world, forcing all nations, alliances and blocs under its domain; thus completely destroying their sovereignty. In effect the hegemonic bloc, under the pretence of international rights, would be declaring themselves as a world government, enforcing law by diktat over the rest of the globe. The only way to enforce international rights, therefore, is effectively global slavery to a self-righteous and self-appointed elite.

Conclusion
It is clear when going through the concrete logical motions that are required for international rights to exist that they are not the route to freedom and liberty on Planet Bob, as the idealistic Globalists would have us believe. Instead they are the basis of the slow, long walk to global slavery, where the international arena is overseen by a select few who, through military hegemony, have declared themselves legislative, police, judge, jury and executioner. Is this the world we seek to aspire to?