Force of international law

Not much new information, but The Economist has a good discussion of the divide between the U.S.' willingness to apply international law to others, and its refusal to accept foreign law itself:

Some, such as John Bolton, set to become Mr Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, believe that treaties that constrain American sovereignty in any way are “not legally binding”; but Mr Bush cited Iraq's transgressions of international law as part of the reason to go to war. Mr Bush has pulled America out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kyoto agreement on the environment, ignored international laws of war and sent terrorist suspects into legal limbo in Guantánamo; yet America is among the strongest backers of global rules on trade, finance and international investment.

Want more direct double standards?

Under a treaty that came into force last year, extradition rules have been eased between Britain and the United States. America no longer has to present supporting evidence against someone it wants to extradite from Britain. It simply has to claim that an “extraditable” offence—one carrying a prison sentence of at least a year—has been committed. But because the Senate has so far declined to ratify the treaty, the new rules do not apply the other way round. If Britain wants to extradite a suspect from America, it still has to make out a prima facie case against him.

And, of course, the definitive example:

Foreign companies are getting worried, too, about the use of America's Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in 1789, which grants jurisdiction to American federal courts over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”. This is increasingly being invoked by foreigners in America to sue international companies for alleged wrongs suffered outside the United States. One can imagine the rumpus if such a law were invoked, abroad, against an American company.

And even the Economist's relatively thorough discussion manages to avoid mentioning that the U.S. also happily flaunts trade rules where it sees fit: see e.g. the Byrd amendment and the ensuing legal proceedings.

Granting that states should always make all available efforts to cooperate in their mutual interest, I wonder why the rest of the world bothers trying to negotiate otherwise-binding treaties involving the U.S. What precisely is the point in another state's limiting its freedom of action through a contract, where the U.S. makes it clear that it plans to disregard the contract at will without penalty? The most commitment another state can count on from the U.S. is essentially a statement of intent - why offer to be legally bound in return?