ILaw violations Impact

US respect for ILAW key to effective terror prevention

Laura E. Little, Professor of Law and James E. Beasley Chair in Law, Beasley School of Law, 38 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 1, Lexis professionalism, the reputation of U.S. legal culture, and global cooperation are all noble ends in themselves. Yet they also act as instruments to yet another end: defeating terrorism itself. The reasoning unfolds as follows: by skillfully tracking international and comparative examples, federal courts
Enhancing judicial enhance the legitimacy of the United States. If our legitimacy is enhanced, then we are more likely to get cooperation from other countries in detecting nascent terrorist activity, capturing suspects, and prosecuting

When we lose legitimacy, we sacrifice the assistance of other countries. Our reduced legitimacy likely also galvanizes terrorist cells and facilitates their recruiting efforts. n119 Increased U.S. legitimacy presumably has the opposite effect. Yet another salutary effect emerges: improving cooperation among nations and increasing the prestige of transnational law renders law a more effective tool for fighting terrorism. We can
terrorists transnationally. trace the source of terrorism to failures of the rule of law in other countries. U.S. courts contribute to bringing rule of law to these countries by showing that we are part of the international enterprise of developing universal norms and by cooperating in cross-fertilization of legal cultures. Surely world governance by rule of law is strengthened when the world's "legal systems work together in harmony rather than at cross purposes." n120

International law solves war and terrorism

Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, International Law, 2010, http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/intla.html International law governs relations between states. It provides the basis for peace and stability and aims to protect and ensure the wellbeing of humankind. Globalisation has not only increased the importance of international law but also the complexity of international legal issues. Switzerland, which
is not a major power politically or militarily, is committed to ensuring that international relations are governed by law and not by force. For this reason, it takes an active part in the development of international law. This is

International law encompasses the various fields, including: The prohibition of the use of force: States must resolve their differences by peaceful means. Human rights: Every individual can demand certain fundamental rights (the right to life, freedom from bodily harm, personal freedom, freedom of opinion and conscience, etc.). The protection of individuals during wars and armed conflicts: International humanitarian law defines the rules of war and especially those concerning the protection of civilians, the wounded and prisoners of war. The fight against terrorism and other serious crimes: Efforts to deal with such threats can only be effective if they are founded on international law.
in fact one of the main objectives of Swiss foreign policy: to safeguard the countrys interests.

International law deescalates all conflicts --- international norms; Held explains,
Held 07 (Virginia Held, political analyst and fellow at the American Political Science Association, Military Intervention and Terrorism, American Political Science Association, August 30, 2007)

only with cooperative respect for international norms among states we hope for the peaceful resolution of disputes that might otherwise turn murderous and calamitous, with technological advances continually exacerbating the problems of conflict. This answer may rely too uncritically on an analogy between law
An answer that can be offered to why we should respect international law is that with conflicting interests can within states and between them. Since comparable vulnerabilities and comparable mechanisms, especially of enforcement, are usually not present in the international arena, the arguments may need to be different. Still, relying on experience, we can conclude that norms that independent states agree to and agree to apply to

themselves can facilitate progress toward a less violent and destructive and threatening and insecure world, and that international law is the best available source of such norms. We can acknowledge that international law should not always be determinative of policy,
and still maintain that it is deserving of a very high degree of respect. That international law as presently constituted has been designed to serve the interests of existing states, with all their flaws, does not undermine the argument for respecting it. There are many deficiencies in governing and in the international system of sovereign states that are beyond the reach of, and are even protected by international law. Nevertheless, international law is a better source of hope for keeping the

world from exploding in violence than the alternative of ignoring it. That the administration of

George W. Bush has so grievously dismissed international law is a ground for the moral condemnation of the Bush administration, not a criticism of foreign policy based on morality.