Chapter 11: International Law & Human Rights – Aliens, Asylum, and Humanitarianism

Rules between countries don’t just appear out of nowhere—they’re the result of centuries of negotiation, conflict, and compromise, shaped by everything from dynastic alliances and colonial empires to revolutions and global institutions. The modern era of international law is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which laid the foundation for state sovereignty and the principle that each state has authority within its own borders. Since then, international law has expanded dramatically, now covering war crimes, trade, diplomacy, human rights, and even outer space. But here’s the kicker: there’s no global sheriff. Unlike domestic laws, which are enforced by police, courts, and penalties, international law depends largely on voluntary compliance and peer pressure among states. Sure, there are institutions like the International Court of Justice or the United Nations, but their power is limited—especially when major powers like the U.S., Russia, or China decide to ignore rulings that clash with their national interests. This raises a tough but fascinating question: in a system built on sovereignty and mutual consent, who actually makes sure the rules are followed—and what happens when they’re not?

When nations do agree to follow a set of rules, they often do so through formal, binding agreements. A treaty is one of the most important legal tools in international law, serving as a contract between states that outlines their rights and obligations. Treaties have shaped global cooperation on issues like nuclear weapons (the Non-Proliferation Treaty), climate change (the Paris Agreement), and human rights (the Convention Against Torture). However, signing a treaty does not always guarantee compliance—some states sign but fail to uphold their commitments, while others refuse to ratify treaties to maintain political flexibility. This problem is captured in the sci-fi film District 9, where no formal international agreement is reached to help the aliens and their crisis. In its place, the government and a powerful corporation MNU exploit the alien population with no accountability. Their status mirrors that of stateless people in the real world—such as the Rohingya in Myanmar—who lack legal recognition and protection. The film critiques the idea that rights depend on legal agreements, exposing the harsh reality that without enforcement mechanisms, treaties can be little more than symbolic gestures.

Not all international rules come from formal treaties—some develop more organically through consistent behavior and shared understanding. This is the basis of customary international law, which refers to legal norms that states follow out of a sense of obligation, even if there’s no written agreement. Think of widely accepted rules like the ban on genocide, the rejection of slavery, or diplomatic immunity for foreign ambassadors. These are considered binding because most countries recognize and uphold them, not because they signed the same document. The tricky part is figuring out when a repeated behavior becomes a legal obligation versus just a tradition. In District 9, the way aliens are treated shows how informal norms—especially discriminatory ones—can take hold and feel “normal” even without being officially codified. Think about all of the informal “behaviors” and customs between humans and aliens that were depicted in the film. It mirrors how apartheid operated in South Africa: a system that was socially enforced long before being dismantled by law. The film challenges us to ask: do moral and legal responsibilities exist even when there’s no treaty spelling them out?

The biggest challenge to international law is the principle of sovereignty, which grants states the authority to govern themselves without external interference. While sovereignty is essential for maintaining national independence, it often comes into conflict with international efforts to enforce human rights and prevent atrocities. Governments frequently resist outside intervention, arguing that their domestic policies are no one else’s business. This tension is evident in real-world crises, such as China’s treatment of the Uyghur population or Russia’s actions in Ukraine, where claims of sovereignty are used to push back against international criticism. In District 9, the South African government asserts control over the alien population, making decisions about their relocation and treatment without any accountability to external actors. The film critiques the idea that sovereignty should be absolute, showing how it can be used to justify oppression when left unchecked. The global community continues to debate when it is appropriate to override sovereignty in order to protect vulnerable populations—a dilemma that often arises in the context of war and conflict.

One of the most widely respected areas of international law is the regulation of warfare, particularly through the Geneva Conventions. First established in 1864 and most significantly updated in 1949, these treaties set legal standards for humane treatment during armed conflict. They prohibit targeting civilians, require the humane treatment of prisoners of war, protect medical personnel, and ban torture and other forms of inhumane treatment. Violations of these rules are classified as war crimes and can be prosecuted by international courts. Some high-profile prosecutions have occurred—such as those by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda after the 1994 genocide, and by the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which convicted figures like Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić for atrocities during the Bosnian War. These cases demonstrate the potential for international law to hold individuals accountable. However, enforcement is uneven. Political considerations often shield perpetrators from prosecution, especially when powerful states or their allies are involved. For instance, alleged war crimes in Syria have largely gone unpunished due to geopolitical gridlock. Similarly, investigations into actions by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Russian forces in Ukraine face significant obstacles. While the Geneva Conventions enjoy near-universal acceptance, applying them consistently remains a challenge. Still, they serve as a crucial legal and moral foundation in the effort to humanize war and protect those caught in its path.

The evolution of international law reflects humanity’s ongoing attempt to balance power, justice, and order in an increasingly interconnected world. While treaties, customary laws, and legal institutions seek to uphold global norms, enforcement remains a challenge—especially when sovereignty is used as a shield against accountability. District 9 serves as a powerful metaphor for these struggles, illustrating how laws, when left unenforced, can become tools of oppression rather than protection. The film forces us to ask difficult questions: Who gets to decide what laws apply and to whom? When should sovereignty be overridden in the name of justice? And most importantly, how can international law evolve to ensure that rights and protections extend to all—whether human or alien? These questions remain at the heart of political science, challenging us to imagine a world where legal principles are upheld not just in theory, but in reality.