which makes for better foreign policy? subjectivism or legalism?

[wuushew]

In recent history several illegal actions have occurred that skirt the definition of what is permissible in international law. The Kosovo intervention was illegal as was the Afghanistan invasion. (Pro Afghan invasion people will be irked no doubt, but I challenge them to show substantial differences between 9/11 and Libyan/Iranian terrorism in the 1980's.) Both actions however where popular in public opinion and taking such actions were rewarded by political success.

However for every subjective foreign policy "success" their is also an Iraq, Beirut or Vietnam.


The debate need not be confined to matters of war. The founding fathers insisted on a written constitution with a bill of rights not because similar ideas did not exist in England, rather that such ideas where stymied by the authority of King George without any real checks on his power.


Even the interpretation of written law is subjective however. How do argue original intent vs. literal reading? Does popular whim assist or detract from decisions of governments? Isn't hypocrisy the ultimate enemy of good government?