Thanks to our constitutional guarantees, Americans have much more freedom of speech than other countries do. This shows up in the different libel laws of different countries. But now, thanks to international trade agreements such as NAFTA, Americans are being sued for violating other country’s Alibel laws. From American Journalists Silenced in Foreign Lands, which tells about some specific cases:
NAFTA was signed into law in 1994 eliminating most trade barriers. However, an unintended consequence of NAFTA was the ability for foreign individuals and entities to sue American journalists and authors on libel and defamation suits much harder to adjudicate in America.
Under Canadian law [currently being invoked against American investigative reporter Paul Williams], once an accusation of libel is made, the respondent must prove they are innocent rather than the plaintiff proving guilt. . . .
Foreign citizens or entities suing American journalists in foreign courts for libel and defamation is a growing trend, and as a result Congress is stepping into this issue to fortify free speech protection.
US Citizen, Rachel Ehrenfeld, author, and lecturer was also sued for libel in a British court over her controversial book, Funding Evil. She counter sued stating that under American defamation laws her book was not libelous, but her case was dismissed in a New York court. As a result of her case, theNew York legislature passed a law called Rachel’s Law, protecting New York citizens against libel judgements not recognized under American libel jurisprudence.
Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA), alarmed at the increase of libel suits against the American press, has sponsored The Free Speech Protection Act.
Here is a bipartisan issue that Americans should be able to rally around. The relationship between our laws and international laws is going to be a bigger and bigger issue in this age of globalization. International treaties generally trump local and national ordinances. Some people–both those who like the prospect and those who are horrified at the thought–see international law as making possible a de facto world government at the expense of national sovereignty. What do you think?
HT: Carl
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
modern nation states have only existed for a very short time in world history. so the idea of “national sovreignty” seems like a little less than an objective concept to me.
As a christian, I am in favor of the rule of law wherever and however it crops up. I don´t slice this as sovereignty vs international law. I slice this as wise laws vs unwise laws in a world where people (and so by extention governments) are sinful and are corrupted by self-interest.
Here in brasil, all international treaties signed actually become part of constitutional law, integral parts of brasilian law. This seems right to me.
making the assumption that what this article says is completely accurate….
It seems there should be some thought given to how to resolve laws at the national level that conflict with laws at the international level. Perhaps americans are equipped for this with their long history of federalism.
Maybe international law needs to look like federalism, although even we seem to have lost sight of that concept in favor of a strong central power in iraq and afghanistan eh?
Perhaps americans are equipped for this with their long history of federalism.
Maybe we used to be, but the overreaching federal government has broken this for us. What is this ninth and tenth amendment thing?
Federalism was lost long ago. The first death gasp came when Lincoln redefined the entire concept of our country in order to justify the use of force to compel the States to remain in the Union. Federalism proved fairly resilient and made some what of a come back. Then it was beaten almost entirely into submission when FDR used the ugly club of Court-packing to strong arm the Supreme Court into blessing the New Deal policies that stripped the States of almost all of their rights. Johnson drove the final stake through its heart with his Great Society. Since then, our attempts to revive it have been meager. The successes have been small (but I hold out hope).
But centralized power to fight a in a war with a foreign land/people does not offend federalism. That is one of the limited areas that federal power was supposed to be superior.
As for international law being okay as long as the laws are good, I would argue that you can’t stop the analysis of law at whether it is a good law or a bad law. The system is the law. How the laws are enacted is much more important than what the laws are. Becuase the system of enactment will determine how soon those good laws will be replaced with bad laws. Ignoring the system in favor of the law creates tyrants.
For better or for worse we have been given a system of gov’t that not only allows us to participate – it requires our participation in order to operate properly. We should not and cannot fulfill our calling as citizens by abdicating the hard task of creating laws to some international body that is not of our own gov’t.
Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech must be protected. Perhaps we can come up with a law that allows us to sue those suing us for libel in other countries.
Joe@5 makes a very good point. Regardless of the text of the law, increasing centralization of power should concern all of us. I’m disagreeing quite strenuously with fws here: there is a qualitative difference between a “good” law passed at the local level and a “good” law passed by a remote and unquestionable international authority.
‘Here in brasil, all international treaties signed actually become part of constitutional law, integral parts of brasilian law. This seems right to me.’
We then become subject to laws that most abridge our Constitutional rights. What guarantee do we have that they won’t be used to put us at a disadvantage politically and economically?
Absolutely none.
God saw fit to allow us the Constitution as the Law governing our country. To hell with third world dictators and banana republics dictating the laws of our land.( They seem to be running their own countries so well – NOT)
Globalism becomes the rule of the least common denominator. No thanks.
Personally, I think suing for libel and defamation is too easy, irrespective of country. And you are all stupid…;)
But FWS’ point is right: National sovereignty is a fairly young concept. Especially when divorced from a Sovereign. I’m not always convinced it is a good one.
When I take up Canadian citizenship, I will swaer loyalty to Canada’s sovereign, who is also the Queen of England, another (small s) sovereign state. But my loyalty would lie with her as Sovereign of Canada only. My loyalty, thus interpreted (at least theoretically), would be to the state of Canada as long as the collective in this state is loyal to Her Majesty. If the PM was to denounce her, my loyalty would be for the Head of the government, but not for the government itself. It can get complicated….
All basically to say that issues such as (small s) sovereignty are not always clear-cut.
Interesting that Canada would so quickly depart from the Anglo-American legal tradition of “innocent until proven guilty” for the Napoleonic ideal of injustice.
Canadian libel law:
http://duhaime.org/LegalResources/TortPersonalInjury/LawArticle-76/Canadian-Defamation-Law.aspx#
FWS @ 1 and 2: The whole genesis of the U.S.A. was a reaction against the concept of being governed by foreign authorities who were not accountable to the people being governed (“taxation without representation”). Why would we ever consent to going back to such a system? And why would it be better for a governing body in the Hague, for example, to establish our domestic laws, rather than our own elected representatives? How does such an arrangement promote the cause of individual liberty?
Is it me, or are most that are railing against international law ignoring the fact that such law only applies to us if we, by treaty, agree that it does?
Veith’s article is about NAFTA. NAFTA doesn’t have force in the United States because some external governing entity says it does. It has force here because our elected officials (in this case, George H. W. Bush and, if you include the supplements, Clinton) agreed to abide by it.
As such, we are not free to simply ignore its implications, because it, like all treaties, is the law of the land. Because our sovereign government, as per the Constitution, says so.
Or am I missing something?
I’m sure it’s fun to complain about The Hague this and One World Government that, but let’s do keep this in context, yes?
As the token Canadian (Happy Thanksgiving everyone!) I am going to chime in. I am not sure that this article is accurate, or perhaps it is leaving something out that would be instructive. That being said, Canada does not have a sense of freedom of speech to the extent that the United States does, which allows us to have stringent anti-hate laws.
Unfortunately, they also allow for the infamous “Human Rights Commissions,” which serve to punish by process. It is a very tricky situation. I wish there was a Canadian lawyer on here that could comment in a more informed manner.
In the end though, international treaties like NAFTA are entered into by the mutual consent of all parties. This is not a New World Order, this is international dialogue.
tODD @ 13: Yes, indeed, we agreed to NAFTA, and we are stuck with the results unless and until we negotiate a change to the treaty or abgrogate it or the offending portions in some way.
The point, though, is that we should not agree to treaties that subject American citizens to the jurisdiction of a foreign court while they are domiciled in the U.S. and for actions they undertake in the U.S. We need to ensure that Americans are subject only to the jurisdiction of American governments for actions and activities they undertake in the U.S. When we see the kind of injustice that was the subject of the article Dr. Veith referenced, we need to speak up to ensure that our government officials are congizant of these types of dangers when considering proposed treaties.
I think I misspoke or spoke in a way that was easily misinterpreted.
Let me restate:
Federalism and iraq/afghanistan: It would seem to be the best solution for both iraq (kurds, sunni and shia) and afghanistan (tribal regions). Telling that we didn´t advocate for this solution eh?
Federalism and international law. Joe is right, the system is more important than the actual laws. Here is a hypothetical: “United states of western hemisphere”. same issues that faced the founding fathers? senate where the banana republics (aka wyoming, utah and oklahoma) get equal power as the populous states that pay the taxes? Or would we want a more democratic solution? or a strictly representative government? what did and did not work with what we have now.
The world is getting smaller and regional free trade zones will probably mean economic survival.
Are we ideologically equipped to deal? no. were the founding fathers smarter or just focused better than us? or?
we should not think of nationalism or modern nation state as a unit of government that is some sort of sacred cow. Robert E. Lee felt that “patriotism” meant choosing virginia over the federal government. Ideas change and the ideas are neither right nor wrong, merely better or worse or…
#8 pat kyle
what constitution?
the idea of the constitution was to limit the power of government rather than enumerate rights (ala brasil and europe and alot of other coutries unfortunately), yet americans who claim to be serious about the constitution entertain constitutional amendments about abortion and gay marriage and a whole host of issues that do not betray an understanding this basic function and raison d´etre of our constitution.
I am suggesting, with Joe being right that the system is more important that the individual laws, that some form of federalism when we conceptualize treaty relationships might be useful. The idea of constitutional law being to limit the power of government….. like that pat.
#12 don
I disagree. The american revolution was to maintain the actual status quo and was not really a revolution. the english did not help at all during the french and indian wars and we had to learn to govern our own selves and tax our own selves. The war of independence was meant to preserve all this that had existed for about 100 years. that´s a long time isn´t it?
more to the point: the constitution was limited to reserve the maximum amount of liberty to the populace. it was written specifically and soley to limit government for that purpose. this means domestic government Don.
In that world, gays and polygamists would probably marry, people could divorce legally and do anything else they wanted with the only rule that there be a minimum amount of collateral damage to society. The founders envisioned a sort of organized and lawful anarchy if you will.
Questioning national sovereignty would bother me less if more pernicious ideas were not waiting to be put in its place. The idea that what we need to worry about is how wise the laws are ignores this. Joe and others have caught this.
The question is, how does anyone get jurisdiction over anyone else? I don’t think the argument that whoever has better laws should be recognized as having jurisdiction is a good one. That would be an incentive for a group to claim it had better laws, and needed more force of arms to be able to expand its jurisdiction. That’s bad when we do it and bad when anyone else does it.
If we are in such arrangements as mentioned above by treaty, that is worth considering. The big question for me, then, will be whether those who made the agreement really had the authority to do so, or whether they usurped it. That is both a legal and a moral question.
Recall that the political issue during and immediately after the Reformation was the authority of the Emperor vs. the authority of the local princes and free cities. This was also the issue during the Thirty Years’ War. The Lutherans then emphasized the importance of the small, local governments over the distant international powers. Interestingly, a recent statement from the Pope (which I blogged about) called for a new international order that recalled the old theology of the Empire. Lutherans, by instinct, should find that scary.