When did int'l law become uncool?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by VJ
If you presume that your friends have themselves formed and created their own opinions about the meaningfulness or meaningnesless of international law and you really want to know why international law has suddenly turned "uncool", why don't you ask them and tell us what they answered?

I'm not asking my friends because they're not at hand.

But you seem to have misread the thread title. It doesn't say "why did int'l law become uncool?", it says "when did int'l law become uncool?". The only question in the OP is "Has anyone else noticed a similar shift to nihilism?"

Why are you trolling?

I'm not trolling. I just made the mistake of thinking you were sticking to the topic.

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by GePap
As for your analysis of the current nuclear issue with Iran, I think it is flawed:

Iran's sin vis a vi the NPT is not giving the IAEA full disclosure of all its nuclear activities. The general assumption is that they refuse to give a full accounting of their activities because they plan to create nukes in the future. The solution to this of course is Iran either giving full disclosure to the IAEA, or withdrawing from the NPT, as each signatory state is allowed to do after giving 6 month notice. After withdrawing from the NPT Iran would have the same "right" to have nukes as every other non-NPT member, and NPT signatories would have act towards Iran as the treaty stipulates.

Yes, if Iran withdraws they will have the "right" to nukes. But today they are still in the NPT, and thus if the treaty has any moral weight whatsoever they today have that much less "right" than the Americans.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I'm not asking my friends because they're not at hand.

But you seem to have misread the thread title. It doesn't say "why did int'l law become uncool?", it says "whendid int'l law become uncool?". The only question in the OP is "Has anyone else noticed a similar shift to nihilism?"

Why are you trolling?

I'm not trolling. I just made the mistake of thinking you were sticking to the topic.

Practically speaking, int'l law has never been meaningful. I think it was only cool among your peers because it suited their agenda of blaming US for everything during the Iraq war, when press media in both of our countries used the "America is acting against international law!" widely and loudly. Now that they can't use it to blame and bash US anymore, they're ignoring it. They start using it again when it convienently suits their interests.

But I already said this. This is part of my original answer here, which you then started to divert. I think you had misunderstood something so I kindly counter-replied altough didn't really understand what was the point of your questioning. Turned out you only wanted to spend your time to set up a red herring trap to flame with me. Now that I noticed it and asked why were you trolling, you quickly change the subject by yet again diverting the answer by selectively quoting and subtly changing the discussed subject. Quite frankly, I thought you were better than this.

[Last Conformist]

If you genuinely think I'm trolling, there's a report button right at every post of mine. Why don't you use it rather than feeding the troll?

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Yes, if Iran withdraws they will have the "right" to nukes. But today they are still in the NPT, and thus if the treaty has any moral weight whatsoever they today have that much less "right" than the Americans.

Iran doesn't have nukes.

Iran's violation of the NPT is it non-disclosure of nuclear activities, and what it needs to do to be fully compliant with the treaty is provide the IAEA with the access it demands.

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by GePap


Iran doesn't have nukes.

Nobody said they have.

Iran's violation of the NPT is it non-disclosure of nuclear activities, and what it needs to do to be fully compliant with the treaty is provide the IAEA with the access it demands.

Very fine, but the question wasn't "is Iran in violation of the NPT" but "does Iran have the right to have nukes".

[BeBMan]

Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Has anyone else noticed a similar shift to nihilism?

Yes. It's esp. annoying when you have people who otherwise are all into international stuff, like disarmament treaties etc., but simply ignore it in a case like Iran. The argument I encounter then is mainly "but the NPT is unfair", which may very well be, but I usually get strange reactions when I try to point out that fairness is no category in that field.

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by BeBro


Yes. It's esp. annoying when you have people who otherwise are all into international stuff, like disarmament treaties etc., but simply ignore it in a case like Iran. The argument I encounter then is mainly "but the NPT is unfair", which may very well be, but I usually get strange reactions when I try to point out that fairness is no category in that field.

You might try suggesting Iran found it fair enough to sign.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Very fine, but the question wasn't "is Iran in violation of the NPT" but "does Iran have the right to have nukes".

Well, your question and your thread are at odds.

you made a thread about compliance with treaties, not about "rights."

The NPT as an international treaty stated that from its date on, any signatory that did not have nuclear weapons gave up a pursuit of them in return for assistance in developing the peaceful aspects of nuclear power, with the understanding that those states that had nukes prior to signing would work to disarm in the long term. All parties agreed to take steps to isolate those that did not sign. In order to make sure everyone was complying the IAEA was to monitor the system. Given the paramount nature of National Soverignty in the international system, any state has the right to withdraw form the NPT, knowing of course that there are consequences.

As for your question, Iran has the same "right" to nukes the US has. All Iran has to do to be in full compliance with all international law is withdraw form the NPT. Then it will have the same "right" to nukes as other non-NPT states like India, Israel, and Pakistan.

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by GePap

As for your question, Iran has the same "right" to nukes the US has. All Iran has to do to be in full compliance with all international law is withdraw form the NPT. Then it will have the same "right" to nukes as other non-NPT states like India, Israel, and Pakistan.

has != will have

[LordShiva]

India never signed teh NPT

[BeBMan]

They might have signed the NPTeh.

[Combat Ingrid]

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by Last Conformist

has != will have

One of the basic assumptions of the international system, one of the underpinnings of the United Nations is the concept of National Sovereignty.

Every states has the right to defend itself and to acquire the means it deems necessary to do so, ANY means, meaing any and all weapon systems.

Now, for whatever reason, all states in the system have decided to sign into one or more agreements in which they impose limits on themselves as to what kind of means they will possess. Those self imposed limits do not abrogate the fundamental right stated earlier.

Therefore, Iran, as an independent sovereign state has the same ability to chose to develop any means it deems necessary to its defense. That it currently has agreed to a system in which it forgoes the development of nukes does not mean that it has less of a "right" to nukes than the US, because the only reason the US has a "right" to nukes is national soverignty.

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?

Originally posted by GePap




One of the basic assumptions of the international system, one of the underpinnings of the United Nations is the concept of National Sovereignty.

Near as I can tell, neither the UN apparatus nor any of the major powers agree to your notion of "national sovereignty".

Be that as it may, I can always mention it to the friends allude to and see if they agree, next time the subject comes up.