In a recent article in the Daily Telegraph by David Wolfson, he referred to the ‘sanctity of International Law’ – a concept this publication rejects as wrong, downright dangerous and will argue exists only in the minds of a treacherous globalist ‘elite’ using the concept to undermine democracy and the nation state.
Wolfson - Baron Wolfson of Tredegar to his mates – is both a pillar of the Establishment and a practising orthodox Jew, and his beef is that his beloved international law is now being used as a hammer to beat Israel. No doubt that he is correct in that, but in my view, this proves that ‘international law is just whatever politicians, diplomats and international lawyers in the various government (taxpayer) funded international organisations say it is.
Whatever else David Wolfson KC is, he is undoubtedly a very clever and distinguished lawyer, well-known to be on top of his brief. You might well ask therefore, how I, a humble marine engineer, dare question the opinion of someone so knowledgeable about law. But I do not question his knowledge of law, just his assertion that international law exists –a mere opinion, a belief, a legal fiction, not an established fact like the laws of thermodynamics.
Now it can be reasonably be argued that all law, domestic law included, is a fiction, contrived by the powerful to oppress the powerless and political opponents, as is the case in Britain now. But until recently the Law has been seen to be more or less applied equally and has been built on the basis of some sort of democratic consent, something entirely absent with international law, which has never been applied equally and has always been contrived by faceless apparatchiks with no democratic consent at all.
Wolfson starts his article by quoting the famous Prussian general and military theorist Von Clausewitz who, says Wolfson, “taught us in the 19th century that war was the continuation of politics by other means". Had he lived in 21st century Britain, he could reasonably have substituted “law” or lawfare for “war”, something that will resonate with many of us on the libertarian Right, who see the Establishment using lawfare against those with the wrong opinions. But the concept of international law is even worse: it is an attack on democracy and national sovereignty, a tool being used by the Globalist ‘elite’, who want to abolish both.
My argument is based mainly on the premise that no government has the right, in a democracy, to sign a nation up to a permanent set of international rules that may not – and they usually are not - be in their best interests and which undermine the basic foundations of freedom, sovereignty and democracy.
These ‘laws’, treaties and rules are never subjected to a popular mandate or much, if any, debate and are handled with as much secrecy and opacity as can be managed. They are set by often faceless and unaccountable apparatchiks, many ultimately finding lucrative employment in organisations controlled by megalomaniacal oligarchs in furtherance of agenda that most normal people find abhorrent.
What information is allowed into the public domain about them is misrepresented as being good for the planet, necessary for national safety or, frequently, essential for health reasons, the sinister WHO pandemic treaties are a case in point, something David Wolfson has been, so far as I know, silent about.
The argument that international law does not exist does not rest only on it subverting democracy and national sovereignty, but also its lack of enforceability, the absence of a central authority and that, when cited, it is more often than not selectively enforced. And, of course, unlike domestic law, the fact that compliance is voluntary.
Domestic law is enforced by a central authority, but international law currently lacks a global governing body with the power to enforce its rules consistently. Such an international body, a one world and necessarily totalitarian government is, of course, the main aim of those pushing the concept of an overarching international law.
The globalists start with the tools and idea of a global government before the apparatus of one exists and use them to achieve their desired end in the same way that the ‘Common Market’ established the tools and idea of a centralised continent-wide state to gradually build a sovereign European Union.
The United Nations, the prototype for Global government, can pass resolutions but as yet lacks the means to enforce them without the cooperation of sovereign states. The principle of state sovereignty means that no country is bound in any way to adhere to these resolutions if it conflicts with national interests. This of course undermines the notion of a universally applicable legal framework, which is why the Globalists want to set the UN and its tributaries up as a global government.
They are as yet far from achieving their aim and, in my view, countries like China and Russia will never sign up to it, though they might pretend to, while watching other countries, like Britain and the US, weaken themselves in the name of globalism and net zero, something that might explain the unrelenting hostility the West shows to those countries.
But the constant mendacious refrain we hear of ‘sorry, international law prevents us doing what the people want’, such as stopping the illegals crossing the channel in small boats, is a conditioning process to get us used to the idea of a higher, international authority that just does not exist.
Every legal system has three pillars: the legislature, which defines the law; the judiciary, which adjudicates specific questions of law; and an executive authority, such as the police, which enforces the law by force if necessary, exercising a monopoly on the use of violence or lethal force. All three pillars derive their authority and legitimacy from an external idea: such as the will of the people in democracies. So-called international law lacks all three of these fundamental pillars.
But the globalists trying to achieve global government are now laying the foundations, in organisations like EU and the UN and its various offshoots, like the WHO, being set up as a legislature, with related organisations like the International Criminal Court and the ECHR as the judiciary. We are also seeing incipient enforcement agencies in the form of the much-denied European Defence Force and the integration of western military and police forces.
These thing lack, of course, any authority or legitimacy from a democratically expressed will of the people, but they do derive their inspiration from an external idea: that the world’s problems are global and can only be solved by a global government, necessarily a totalitarian one – an argument that will never be put to the peoples of the independent nations that they want to abolish.
The reality is that so-called international law consists simply of treaties and agreements that a small number of people in government and the higher echelons of the Establishment, in collusion with the self-same groups in other countries and almost always without the consent of the people, now enter into in pursuit of the globalist agenda to erode the nation state.
They decide, for example that mass immigration is desirable and repeatedly use the fiction that if Britain prevents ‘refugees’ entering from France we will be in breach of international law, thus achieving two objectives, more immigration and enhancing the idea of the supremacy of ‘international law’ over the will of the British people. An elitist stitch up, nothing less.
Yet a sovereign nation can choose to withdraw from or ignore such treaties, as did the United States when it withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change under Trump, showing that international law is no more a law than the rules of a golf club are law. And that is why the globalist ‘elite’ constantly seeks to diminish the nation state and national sovereignty by constantly and mendaciously asserting that ‘international law’ has primacy over domestic law - without a shred of democratic approval.
And we are not only seeing the trend to appeal to international law pushed at the highest levels of government and the judiciary, but ignorant activists are also piling in, which is why we have situations where, when Britain is considering selling arms to a country or deporting illegals, some party with an agenda is sure to pop up, usually represented by a lawyer saying that such a move may be “against international law”. And politicised British judges almost always agree if a case goes to court.
But upon closer scrutiny, the idea of international law is fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies that undermine its very existence. It is nothing more a set of vague and often conflicting guidelines with the principle of state sovereignty a major stumbling block. Every state is sovereign and has the inherent right to govern its internal affairs without external interference, a principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter, something that directly conflicts with the idea of a binding legal obligation.
A sovereign state can choose to disregard treaties and so-called international laws if they conflict with its national interest, thereby making the concept of international law voluntary rather than obligatory, in stark contrast with our understanding of law as something binding. And that is why the globalist ‘elite’ is trying so hard to abolish the sovereign nation state.
It is now time for us to put a stop to this, and demand that the British government puts British interests first and asserts the supremacy of British law.