The Evening Star (October 30, 1946)
On the Record…
New international law task for General Assembly
By Dorothy Thompson
All the words which have been addressed to the world from Flushing Meadow, where the General Assembly of the United Nations is sitting, are hortatory. They consist of prayers, admonitions, warnings and affirmations that war is undesirable and peace is desirable. One wonders to whom these admonitions are addressed. Where are the people – from the Russian steppes to the New Mexican mesas, from the Andes to the Alps – who are opposed to peace?
Mr. Spaak of Belgium remarked that the demeanor of the New Yorkers who viewed the United Nations parade was not enthusiastic. Correct, but not because they don’t want peace, but because they think we aren’t going about getting it in a rational way. The radio speeches from the Assembly also have a low Crosley. As a young lad remarked, “They aren’t saying anything but words.”
Americans listen for news, but they aren’t hearing any, except that Mr. Molotov seems less bilious than usual. Our spirits rise and fall, according to something resembling fever-chart reports.
But all we are hearing is that the representatives of all the states are – as Calvin Coolidge summed up a sermon – “against sin.” The sin they are against is war. That is not news.
Now. though sin has not been eliminated from any organized society, certain behaviors, generally regarded as sinful, such as murder, burglary, kidnapping, arson and extortion, are not generally indulged in, despite the sinful proclivities of mankind, because indulging in them has been made dangerous to life, liberty and happiness. A majority of society has translated the word “sinful” into the word “unlawful,” so that the sinner knows that certain activities, if practiced, will certainly set in train other activities directed against himself. Sinful man has been willing, in general, to accept this subjection of some instincts only because he cannot be prosecuted for sin in general, but only for sin in particular, as defined in statutes.
The process of achieving such law and order, or peace, as domestic societies enjoy, therefore first consists in defining what is or is not permissible. It is a crime to break into another man’s house and a worse crime to enter armed; it is an offense to kill another person by careless driving, a much worse offense to kill him with malice aforethought, and no offense to kill him in resistance against being killed.
All law thus begins with definitions, and then follow courts and punitive agencies. While the definitions are being made, there is much discussion and plenty of vetoes. Some persons would like to class divorce as an unlawful sin, while others think it is no sin. There are many such examples. But once the unlawful has been defined in law, nobody thereafter can veto it as long as the law stands.
The enforcement of law always involves court procedures, which vary with the nature of the offense charged and may demand a unanimous jury to convict. But in no case does the defendant sit on the jury, for, if he did, the rule of unanimity would cancel the power of law. Punishments are designed to make allowance for human limitations, to fit the crime, and can vary from a reprimand to a death sentence.
Now, the General Assembly can do no more than “discuss” and “recommend,” but it can discuss and recommend regarding the most important, instead of the less important things. The most important thing it can discuss and recommend is something it is specifically instructed to do in the San Francisco Charter:
“The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification.”
We may wish for the sake of style as well as content that the paragraph had been simpler. But just the same, the Assembly is instructed to try to create a new international law. And since then, the Nuernberg trial has challenged the world to create a codified, enforceable law against aggression, against practices impermissible by belligerents even should war occur, and against crimes against human beings.
This, it seems to one of the constantly exhorted public, is where the General Assembly should concentrate all its efforts. Let’s get those laws framed up and then see who, if anybody., wants to modify or veto them and on what grounds. Then, and then only, will we know who is merely against sin in general, and who is against sin in particular, who is willing to live under law, and who wants to make it up as he goes along. Not until then will “cooperation” be anything but a meaningless phrase.