THE LAW: The Work of Justice

• Share

(5 of 7)

There is, however, a growing body of opinion that the superstate idea, ignoring the brick-by-brick construction of any workable system of law, puts last things first. "May it not be," asks Dean Pound, "that universal law must precede the universal state? There is abundant evidence that there may be a generally recognized and accepted body of principles to which men are expected to adhere in their relations with others ... A world law may eventually lead to a world state when the world becomes prepared for it. But the essential thing is a world legal order—a world regime of due process of law."

Rights Without Forms. The very nature of a world regime of due process assumes that it would not appear overnight as a towering edifice, that it would be built step by difficult step, that it would embrace the principles that are common to nations and compromise the forms of laws which are peculiar. Almost ignored behind the headlines of world crisis is the fact that the U.S. in recent years has taken major steps in contributing to a world legal order.

Since 1951, for example, the U.S. has negotiated more than 40 status-of-forces agreements granting friendly nations primary legal jurisdiction over American servicemen overseas who commit off-duty, off-base violations of law. The host nations guarantee each G.I. the basic rights of U.S. justice (e.g., a fair trial), but not the U.S. forms for securing those rights (e.g.., trial by jury). The status-of-forces agreements cover some 14,000 cases a year without bruising the U.S. sense of justice. They received dramatic confirmation last year in the case of Army Specialist Third Class William S. Girard, who killed a Japanese woman, was tried amid U.S. hue and hubbub in a Japanese court without a jury—and received the justice which was his unalienable right. In the status-of-forces agreements the U.S. thus respects the integrity of the laws of foreign countries without sacrifice to the basic principles of its own law.

In last year's Suez crisis, the U.S., as rarely before in the history of nations, forsook the rule of power for the rule of law. At basic issue was Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal, and U.S. Government lawyers were by no means sure that Britain and France had the stronger legal case. When Britain and France fell back on force, the U.S. supported Egypt against longstanding allies. "There can be no peace without law," said President Eisenhower. "And there could be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends." Thus was international sanction given to one of the principles that the U.S. regards as a basic, unalienable right: equality before the law.