International Law 245law reflects what is right. States want to be looked on positively, according to liberal
thinking. They want to be respected by world public opinion, and they fear being
labeled as pariahs and losing face and prestige in the international system.
Who, then, enforces international law in the absence of an international police
force or international executive? The answer is that states enforce international law
through self- help. Should states choose not to obey international law, other states have
instruments at their disposal. Both realists and liberals point to states’ reliance on self-
help mechanisms, including the tools of diplomacy, economic statecraft, and use of
force, as discussed in Chapter 5.
But liberals contend, rightly in many cases, that self- help mechanisms of enforce-
ment by one state alone are apt to be in effec tive. A diplomatic protest from an enemy
or a weak state is likely to be ignored, although a protest from a major ally or a hege-
mon may carry weight. Economic boycotts and sanctions by one state will be in effec-
tive as long as the transgressor state has multiple trading partners. And war is both too
costly and unlikely to lead to the desired outcome. In most cases, then, for the enforce-
ment mechanism to be effective, several states have to participate. For enforcement to
be most effective, all states must join together in collective action against the violator
of international law and norms. In the view of liberals, states find protection and sol-
ace in collective action and collective security. Hence, multilateral action, often or ga-
nized through IGOs, is essential.
Sometimes, states do not comply with international law; scholars have conducted
several studies to determine why. Is a deliberate decision to not comply always made
because compliance was not in the state’s national interest? Is it because states know
there is no hierarchical enforcement and coercive mechanism? Is it because often times
the wording of the law is ambiguous, either purposefully or accidentally? Or is it
because some states lack the capacity to comply?^14 Recent empirical studies point to
lack of bureaucratic or managerial capacity, especially in new states.
Lack of bureaucratic or state capacity was certainly not the explanation for U.S.
noncompliance with the Geneva Conventions, or specifically, the UN Convention
Against Torture. Issues arose over the U.S. treatment of individuals captured during
the Af ghan i stan conflict. Were they prisoners of war and therefore protected under
the Geneva Conventions? Was torture being committed? Based on the arguments of
administration lawyers, the United States contended that since the prisoners did not
represent a state, they were “ enemy combatants,” a category not found in the Geneva
Conventions. And prisoners were not being tortured, according to the interpretation
of the word “torture.” Other states, most legal authorities, and most NGOs disagreed.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and the
Geneva Conventions, once known to only a few, have attained international visibility
due to their revelations about U.S. actions.