I think it's interesting

That no one has yet posted about terrorism: the war on terror, state-less criminals/freedom fighters, and the role of international bodies like the International Court of Justice.

When Agamben writes "One of the essential characteristics of biopolitics is this constant need to redefine the threshold in life that distinguishes and separates what is inside from what is outside. Once it crosses over the walls of the oikos and penetrates more and more deeply into the city, the foundation of sovereignty--nonpolitical life--is immediately transformed into a line that must be constantly redrawn. Once zoe is politicized by declarations of rights, the distinctions and thresholds that make it possible to isolate a sacred life must be newly defined" (131).

Like the refugee example that Agambe cites, terrorists also break the "continuity between man/citizen, nativity and nationality, they put the originary fiction of modern sovereignty in crisis" (131). As free radicals that do not belong to a nation, are obstinately outside nationality, terrorists/refugees seemingly subvert the argument that life is something guaranteed by the nation state. When a country like the U.S. self identifies as a place where "all men are created equal+have inalienable rights, etc.", but refuses to accept a boat full of Jewish refugees in WWII, or does not address the inalienable rights of exploited immigrant workers, one can only assume that the universal/"All men" rights are only intended for naturalized citizens of the United States. In this paradigm where nation states have taken over the mantle of guaranteeing these rights, what of nationless people? Their presence seems to indicate that zoe is not reducible to nation-state-political-life, despite the fact that nation states have made zoe into the identity of being a citizen.

But--what of the ICJ, the UN, the Geneva conventions? Does the fact that these international bodies have the protection of Universal Human Rights, of mediating international conflict--in turn domesticizing international conflict into a kind of global domestic conflict, i.e. we are all part of a global society that recasts "international" actors as within the same home, as domestic--ostensibly apply to //all// humanity somehow supersede the nation states zoe-incorporating policies, or perhaps reinforce them? My reading would be one of reinforcement, since a refugee/terrorist can exist as a non-state actor, but cannot exist outside of humanity or the earth--which seem to be the constituencies of the ICJ and UN.

Thoughts? Are international bodies like the ICJ, UN, and the GC a kind of all-seeing eye, stitching zoe into political life? I for one would like to table the dissonance and return to the Aristotelian family/polis, private/public, zoe/bios duality...quixotic and perhaps ig'nant, but oh well