Why do Americans have an irrational fear of international organizations?

[Arrian]

It's a loose analogy, Azazel.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

At the time we enforce international law, we feel that we are not enforcing it unjustly. Later, we may change our minds, but so what?

The so what is that you can't just unilaterally decide that international law does not apply. It's already been set and you can't say that since we don't like it anymore we just won't follow it. Our name is on the treaty or we have accepted the custom. Unless we pass a law that invalidates the treaty (which, btw, we normally do NOT), we can't just go around and ignore international law.

It's like having a law passed by Congress and the President, and the next President decides to just ignore the law. He doesn't try to get a new law invalidating the old law; he just ignores the law on the books.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
[q] Originally posted by Boris Godunov
My point was that it's stupid to say "the danger has never come up, so there's nothing to fear and we can stop guarding against it" when the reason it has never come up is because we've guarded against it. It's like arguing that we should remove the fire codes because there have been almost no fires.

All well and good, but you're making a strawman. I never said we should give up sovereignty entirely, and signing on with the ICC doesn't do that. Given that there are safeguards already in place, our continued resistance appears to be less about concern for sovereignty and more about wanting to preserve our special place in the world.

Since we've never let them in the first place, how would they attempt to?

Since we have no attempts, why should we always thwart the ICC when we have not a shred of evidence that it will be used to unfairly infringe on our sovereignty?

International relations does, inevitably, require some degree of trust. If we say we don't trust other nations to treat us fairly, what right have we to expect they not think the same of us?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If we say we don't trust other nations to treat us fairly, what right have we to expect they not think the same of us?

Indeed. And then when we want a treaty passed, we may find less takers to sign off on it.

[Az]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's a loose analogy, Azazel.

-Arrian

And thus, a bad one. Separation of powers is one of the most important things in our society, and a thing that is completely lacking in the realm of international law.

[Arrian]

Bah, we'll make 'em sign with our BIG FRICKIN' LASER!

Sorry, Az's avatar set me off.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Azazel

And thus, a bad one. Separation of powers is one of the most important things in our society, and a thing that is completely lacking in the realm of international law.

Ok, then. Let's change that, shall we? Oh,wait,that requires more international organizations...

All I'm saying is that stuff getting done by compromise between a bunch of interested parties is most likely better than might makes right. Perhaps only slightly better, yeah, but better nonetheless. If there is impartial judicial review of the process, so much the better.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Separation of powers is one of the most important things in our society

Britain seems to manage fairly well without much seperation of powers at all .

[Az]

Ok, then. Let's change that, shall we? Oh,wait,that requires more international organizations...

EXACTLY!

I am not against international organizations, per se. I am for them. I am a goddamn communist, remember? I want a one world government. However, now, I think that it's a very very bad world government, esp. with regards to law and order. I'd rather have it abolished, and keep the good parts of it, as independent intl. organizations, than keep it in that stupid way, or make it worse, in that worse in that stupid way. However, I highly support it being improved!

[Ramo]

Did y'all hear that our precious Congress just cut aid to every country that refuses to give us immunity in the ICC?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Arrian
Spoken like a true liberal, eh?

-Arrian

Hey, it wasn't decaf, nor was it non-fat. Take that, panty-waists!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Did y'all hear that our precious Congress just cut aid to every country that refuses to give us immunity in the ICC?

Yep... that is what I meant by actively trying to destroy it. The US also ****ed with Bosnian peacekeeping (using its veto) simply as a powerplay for this issue. The tactics used against the ICC by this administration is disgusting. It's one thing to disagree, quite another to do this.

[MalevolentLight]

Imran Siddiqui project? I didn't know he still needed to be turned.

[Jon Miller]

the problem is that you want nations to be equal

they aren't, the US is stronger than the rest

so therefore it is unequal to force the US to do what a bunch of weaker nations want

otherwise, why doesn't the US split itself into a confederation of many smaller nations and get itself more votes? (wait, isn't that the EU...)

also there is the fact that we have actual enemies, or at least not freinds, in the world

there is no reason that I can see to volunteerly give power to those who do not seek our best interest unless we are made to

Jon Miller

[Az]

Britain seems to manage fairly well without much seperation of powers at all

They're a lucky exception.