Abstract:

It is a difficult task, to ask students to interpret contemporary international controversies. They will go to the corporate and state media, which mostly reflect the view of powerful states, or to agencies which often amplify these same state-media messages. It is normally only after the dust settles that independent research begins to emerge. For example, the facts about claims of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq only emerged many months after the invasion of that country in March 2003. An option many take is simply to stay away from such controversies. However, as the consequences may be time critical, what appropriate tools are available to intelligent students, to read and build understandings?

This paper argues that a combination of postcolonial and forensic principles can help construct an informed and ethical approach to understanding contemporary international controversies. These principles include key elements of international law adopted in the post-colonial era, in particular the right of peoples to self-determination and its corollary, the prohibition of foreign intervention. The few limited exceptions are noted. Attempts to avoid anti-war norms through ‘exceptional circumstances’ can be tested with traditional forensic tools. The first step must be to identify ‘interested parties’. Second, sources of independent evidence can be identified and made central to an assessment. Third, the self-serving statements of interested parties should be excluded, except when they include ‘admissions against interest’. These principles draw on established rules of criminal law. This paper illustrates the value of these principles by applying them to the examples of the chemical weapons scandals in Syria and the question of food security in Venezuela.

Keywords:

International controversies, self-determination, method.