Photo courtesy of AP Photo
It is not just about the death of the renowned journalist that makes the Jamal Khashoggi incident particularly outrageous. In the midst of confusion, lies, and blood, we see something profoundly interesting about our international order.
On the surface, we see three states: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the U.S.
The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (commonly referred to as MBS) is allegedly behind the premeditated murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Turkey is upset because Khashoggi was killed on its territory. The U.S. is involved because Khashoggi was an American resident who wrote regularly for The Washington Post. When the homicide brought global powers into the discussion, what we see is an absence of enforceable power for international law. So, while we mourn Khashoggi, let us dig deeper into what his death means.
Here are the issues: 1) Khashoggi, a U.S. permanent resident, was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey where Turkey does not have legal power; 2) Turkey must protect legally-entered visitors from foreign countries, and 3) diplomatic immunity prevents diplomats from being prosecuted under the host country’s laws. In short, the Khashoggi incident is a case in which the legal visitor was killed in the territory void of Turkish authority by those who may be protected under diplomatic immunity.
International law does not guarantee justice. No laws of any country, as a matter of fact, guarantee justice partly because the concept of justice is subjective. But laws are still meaningful because they are rules by which we have agreed to abide. Likewise, international law is meaningful because it is agreed by countries to secure orders for trades, crimes, diplomacy, and so on. The fatal weakness of international law is that it lacks complementary enforcing institutions. International law fails to do its distinctive function when a state outweighs disobedience over obedience.
The Khashoggi case shows that international law, at least, gives reasons for relevant actors to discuss and negotiate issues in new terms. For instance, international law highlights the wrongness of Khashoggi’s death, thereby providing Turkey and the U.S. legitimate reasons to convene and discuss geopolitical issues. This discussion is different than previous ones because Khashoggi’s death politically nudges public support for new foreign policies. The U.S. and Turkey can now reduce tension as a result. Turkey released the American pastor Andrew Brunson, while the U.S. looks to remove sanctions on Turkey.
Saudi Arabia will get away with killing the dissident journalist. The U.S. still supports Saudi Arabia especially because Saudi Arabia is the biggest U.S. arms purchaser. Also, they are partners in putting pressures on Iran. International law is tremendously merciful to Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia is allowed to hover over international law to maintain U.S. interests.
It seems that international law has justificatory power to persuade the public for desired foreign policies, but it lacks enforceability as a form of agreement between parties. The power that international law promises may not be real. It is torn and shaped to produce desirable outcomes with support from the persuaded and politicized public. Sometimes, international law is entirely ignored. We are outraged not just because of the murder, but also because of the lack of order. We see no signs of commitment to justice by global powers. What this tragedy teaches us is that power and interests overrule international orders as long as we have leaders like Erdogan, MBS, and Trump.
-Jaywon Choi
