May The Strong Protect The Innocent
In his inaugural address, president John F. Kennedy promoted, “creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.” The protection of indigenous peoples is a key measure by which the progress of modern society should be judged. Non-Industrialized, indigenous peoples cannot defend themselves against the industrial military machines of modern society. Therefore, by means of constructivist mechanisms, the popular morals and ethics of advanced military societies decide upon the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. Constructivist approaches to international relations assert the power of groups to socialize the international community to new norms. Recent scholarship states that constructivist “[b]eliefs about [c]hange” in the international community are that change is “[p]ossible through socialization, diffusion of ideas, or internationalization of norms.” Before it reaches the international level, this change begins in the hearts of the people. The genesis of absolute, universally beneficial change is revealed to humankind by the Holy Spirit as taught by the scriptures in Romans 2:14,15 . Has this mechanism of socialization provided enduring protection for the indigenous peoples whose rights have been infringed by the world’s greatest military machine, the USA? In this essay, three court cases will be used to compare constructivist socializing of new norms between 1824 and 2017 with realist counterpoints. We hope to prove that, though constructivism has yielded inconsistent results in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, it has provided significant protection. While current academic literature suggests constructivist mechanisms are effective in socializing groups to new norms, a comparison of three court cases involving the US and indigenous peoples reveals constructivism has provided significant yet inconsistent protection, as seen through an examination of Johnson v. M’Intosh, Worcester v. Georgia and Republic of Marshall v. USA.
HIST 430, History of American International Relations
Melisa Ortiz Berry
Bushnell History Symposium, P103
10 AM – 1 PM