Questions about the validity of human rights and international law

Mieville entirely disapproves of the notion of international law and humanitarian intervention. They were bred out of colonialism, he argues, and therefore reinforce the old hierarchies of power and domination, and allow the first world capitalist powers--like the USA--to continue their exploitation of third world nations. He asserts that "imperialism is not something that international law can successfully oppose, whatever its apparent anticolonial content--it is embedded in the very structures of which international law is an expression and a moment" (270). Progressive change cannot truly be accomplished through international law, then, because it is, in terms of its basic structure, exploitative and imperialistic. He explains that "[i]nternational law's constituent forms are constituent forms of global capitalism, and therefore imperialism" (290). Even human rights, he claims, "tacitly tak[e] bourgeois capitalism for granted," "updat[e] the notion of the civilising mission of the West," and "implies that human rights problems are intrinsically foreign, and that there are no abuses at home" (303).

I think he's absolutely right, but it does leave me wondering what the solution is. Should we do away with international law? Is it something that can be reformed or changed so that it is no longer so unequal and imperialistic? Is there any way in which human rights laws can become more equal? Reading Mieville, you would think the answer was no. I just don't understand what can be done about all of this--and it's something I've been thinking about since this class began.