Dear All!
Please read further down a message from Professor Howard N. Meyer, entitled Give Law a Chance: Statement on The Evolution of World Order!
Most warmly!
Evelin

Below is a statement that was prepared for a conference
at Ryerson University (Ottawa), this weekend. I was invited
to come to discuss the book in connection with a conference
on "The Evolution of World Order." but could not go since
today is my 90th birthday.

The statement was already distributed to a Peace Studies
Conference held by a Teacher's College peace education
unit last weekend at Riverside Church NYC. I'm now about
to send it around to some other places.

Subject: Statement on The Evolution of World Order

GIVE LAW A CHANCE

Some remember the period of the Vietnam protests, when American activists
-- and no doubt someof their brothers and sisters around the world --
chanted and carried banners saying "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE."

That was, of course, intended to be recalled by the title given to this
brief statement. The phrase was not originated by this writer.
It was used for the headline on the front page of the New York Times
Sunday Book Review for August 25, 1990. The book under review was
"On the Law of Nations."

The book was written by United States Senator Daniel P. Moynihan
as the culminating effort in a mini-crusade he had been conducting
in lectures, essays and other publications. That crusade began
with the protest he and Senator Barry Goldwater lodged in 1984
asserting that the CIA action in mining the harbors of Nicaragua
was illegal, a violation of international law. (The mining attack
was part of the ongoing effort of the United States to
change the regime of the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.)

The fate of his effort was summarized by Moynihan in his book:
"In the annals of forgetfulness there is nothing quite to compare with
the fading from the American mind of the idea of the law of nations.
In the beginning this law was set forth as the foundation of our
national existence."

The charge of "illegality" was vindicated by the International Court
of Justice, informally and usually referred to as the World Court.
The action of my government in "walking out" of the proceedings
at the Court after Court rejected (14-1) U S objections to the Court
hearing the case filed by Nicaragua (echoing the Moynihan/Goldwater
demarche) inspired my taking on the effort of writing
The World Court in Action.

The characterization of my country's invasion of Iraq, currently ongoing,
as "illegal" by U N Secretary General Kofi Annan may be compared with
the charge made by Moynihan and Goldwater twenty years ago. The hostile
and/or indifferent response to the current accusation by my fellow-Americans
creates a problem of conscience. Peace activists and advocates and students
should have been bringing this home to the nation. Their failure to do so is in
large part due to ignorance that vindicates Moynihan's reference to the
"annals of forgetfulness."

The Nicaragua case is discussed and explained in my book,
THE WORLD COURT IN ACTION. This is not done in isolation but as part
of the story of America's large role in creation of the Court and later
relations with it. This is included in the history and description of the
functioning of the Court as told for lay readers.

I am happy to call to the attention of Peace Studies participants the words
of one reviewer of the book who appreciatively noted
"The subject of International Law is a missing dimension from peace history,
the history of U S foreign relations and international relations generally.
The World Court in action...makes a significant attempt to rectify this
state of affairs."

For the benefit of a Canadian audience I feel that I should mention a
chapter in U S/Canadian relations of a 160 years ago included in the book:
the case of The Caroline resulted from an episode in the Mackenzie/Papineau
insurrection during which upstate New York was used as a base.
The highly relevant and instructive result of that case
was a rule of international law that Daniel Webster for the U S
and the British (pre-dominion) Foreign Office agreed upon:
[regarding use of the military in self-defense:]
Only where the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming and
leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation is the use of
force legitmate."
(words that peace activists and peace students and peace historians should know)

Howard N Meyer