Thursday, July 11, 2002


The partitions of Yugoslavia were in fact spatial robberies concealed and justified by international law. United States in the course of appropriations of the land of the sovereign country Yugoslavia committed and commits again and again "spatial fraud". The references to international law heart from the apologetics of Washington are nothing but the ideology of imperialist expansion. To justify those acts of blatant imperialist aggrandizement by international law makes law a mere prostitutes of politics.

How right was Carl Schmitt in the past when he wrote: "Behind the facade of general norms of international law lies, in reality , the system of Anglo-Saxon imperialism". More than ever before, in the New World Order, behind the facade of international law lies in reality the system of American imperialism.

In fact, the traditional American doctrine, as seen in the international behavior of the United States , is that international law does not exists., that the body of alleged international law is merely external state law subject to the sovereign power of the state. The internal law of the state has unlimited precedence over international law. The later is valid only in so far it forms part of the domestic legal system , and the state alone determines that.

That doctrine was best stated by Dean Acheson who claimed that:

"Much of what is called international law is a body of ethical distillation, and one must take care not to confuse this distillation with law" . He added further: " The law simply does not deal with such questions of ultimate power - power that comes to the sources of sovereignty". (Dean Acheson (1963 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 13, reprinted in Noyes E. Leech, Covey T. Oliver and Joseph Modeste Sweeney The International Legal System (The Foundation Press, Mineola, New York, 1973) p. 105

The Department of State Circular No. 175, December 13, 1955, reprinted in 50 Am. J. Intl. L. 784 (1956) , stated as a matter of policy,

"Treaties should be designed to promote United States interests by securing action by foreign governments in a way deemed advantageous to the United States. Treaties are not to be used as a device for the purpose of effecting internal social changes or to try to circumvent the constitutional procedures established in relation to what are essentially matters of domestic concern" .

Treaties could not impose any international obligations on the United States or in any way interfere with the domestic legislation of the United States. And United States defined itself the sole judge of what are "matters of domestic concern". Thus the purpose of every treaty which United States entered was to compel other states to perform to the advantage of the foreign policy of the United States. (William W. Bishop, Jr. International Law , Little, Brown and Company, Boston and Toronto, 1953, 1971) p. 101

The US Supreme Court came to the similar conclusion in the precedent setting case "Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964)" :

"The act of state doctrine is applicable even if international law has been violated."

Ever since the Olney's (1895) and Roosevelt's corollary (1904) to the Monroe Doctrine there is no International Law in force in the Western Hemisphere, only the will of the United States as the sole and omnipotent sovereign in the Western Hemisphere. United States has taken the position that it alone is the creator of its own international law for its own imperial space, defined spatially by the perimeter of the Monroe Doctrine. And thus the New World Order is the principles of the Roosevelt corollary applied to the world at large - i.e. the Albright doctrine pronounced during immediately prior to the inception of the war of aggression against Yugoslavia must be seen as Roosevelt corollary for the whole world. The Bush doctrine is even further articularization and globalization of the Roosevelt corollary.

In this conjunction one may recall the formulation of Admiral Stansfield Turner, then head of the Central Intelligence Agency , who defined the real purpose of the Gulf War quite blatantly when he declared on a CNN program in July 1991:

"We nave a much bigger objective. We have got to look at the long run here. This is an example- the situation between the United Nations and Iraq- where the United Nations is deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign nation... Now this is a marvelous precedent to be used in all countries of the world..." (

In the German debate it has been rightfully pointed out that the NATO is a "treaty on wheels" - it does not have any normative substance in international law but purely serves the expediencies of the American expansionism. First NATO went out of treaty and then out of area. And thus the aggression against Yugoslavia by NATO forces was clearly a violation of the NATO Charter itself. Furthermore- it was not only a violation of the Charter but also the annihilation of the UN Charter and thus of all peremptory jus cogens norms of international law.

The concept of "ambulatory jurisprudence" or "legislations on wheels" ( or omnibus treaty) was introduced by the prominent German jurist Carl Schmitt for whom it signified the form of decisionist voluntaristic approach to legal norms by the sovereign. And obviously, much of the body of the previously existing international law has been transformed by the United States into "norms on wheels", to be filled with new substance according the expediencies of the American will to expansionism and world hegemony. Thus the very binding normative substance of international law has disappeared.

In respect to the international law one may recall the words of Lassa Oppenheim:

"A Law of Nations can exist only if there is an equilibrium , a balance of power , between the members of the family of Nations. If the Powers cannot keep one another in check, no rules will have any force , since an overly-powerful state will naturally try to...disobey the law. As there is not and never can be a central political authority above the Sovereign States that could enforce the rule of Law of Nations, a balance of power must prevent any member of the Family of Nations from becoming omnipotent". (Lassa Oppenheim International Law . A Treatise (Longmans, Green, 1905-06), I, pp. 73-74)

Obviously in the unipolar landscape of the New World Order no rules and norms of international law have any force except those norms and rules that emanate from the hegemonic will of the United States. Thus American domestic law has effectively replaced the norms of international law and what is pretentiously alleged to be international law are merely concealed appearances of American imperialism. International law has become a cloak of American imperialism. Although United States claims to use its superpower status to further global stability and universal rights, many international observers simply see a self-satisfied bully intent on shaping the world in its own image‹and trampling on anything that gets in its way writes Atman Trivedi in the Foreign Policy Journal, reviewing the article of prof. Etaju Thomas, published in the journal World Affairs (Nr. 1, 1999): ³

Marquette University political scientist prof. Etaju Thomas takes dead aim at Washington for pursuing a foreign policy of "bombs, sanctions and state destruction." He contends that the so-called Albright Doctrine has given the United States license to go on "expansionist rampages" in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and elsewhere in the name of checking unprovoked aggression. According to Thomas, American military might, backed by the power of economic sanctions or rewards, has transformed the United Nations into an obedient appendage of the United States and allowed Washington to make a mockery of international law. Serbs, for instance, "have a greater moral, political and international legal right to Kosovo, than. . . the United States to California and Texas." Furthermore, he notes, 1 million to 1.7 million innocent Iraqis have died from "American-sponsored" sanctions, including more than half a million children.

What can be added? In the past the German Foreign Minister stated in respect to the American Monroe Doctrine that

"as a matter of principle , non interference by European states in the affairs of the American continent cannot be justified unless the American states, for their part , likewise refrain from interference in the affairs of the European continent".

That is a good starting point : a Monroe Doctrine for Europe as an answer to the New World Order and American totalitarian ambitions for Weltherrschaft. Or as General de Gaulle once said : "A truly free Europe, is Europe free from American hegemony".

USA is not the world government! And never will be!
America Delenda Est!