| Airbornelawyer |
05-21-2020 16:53 |
I have said it before, most notably in the context of the sentimental and narcissistic decision to extend the protections of the Geneva Convention to non-party unlawful combatants, and I will say it again. Under international law, a party not only has the right to deny treaty protections or withdraw from a treaty if the other party is not in compliance, it has the obligation to do so. International relations work as much, if not more, on the basis of negative reciprocity (the stick) as they do on the basis of positive reciprocity (the carrot). A party which can gain the benefits of a convention without entering into or complying with that convention on its own part, has no incentive to enter into or comply with the convention. You weaken the carrot (whatever benefits compliance brings) if you abandon the stick (penalizing non-compliance).
I apply this to international relations, where there are fewer outside forces to influence the actions of sovereign parties, but it also applies in domestic relations. We see it when Republican politicians refuse to get down and dirty in response to the Left's tactics, on the basis of maintaining the moral high ground. If the other side incurs no penalty for its underhanded tactics, it has no incentive to stop.
I described the conventional wisdom above as "sentimental and narcissistic" because while taking the moral high ground may make you feel better about yourself, if it does not in fact result in a better situation, it is not the moral high ground at all.
|
