Tweet
How can there be international laws when people have tanks?
-
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!" -
Why can't we all just... get along?(\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
(='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
(")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)Comment
-
I don'tOriginally posted by DaShi
How can there be international laws when people have tanks?
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTFComment
-
OMG, they have tanks!!!111!!1 Let's send in our spearmen to enforce the law...So get your Naomi Klein books and move it or I'll seriously bash your faces in! - Supercitizen to stupid students
Be kind to the nerdiest guy in school. He will be your boss when you've grown up!Comment
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become unc
Okay, you're either extraordinarily dense or trolling. This conversation is over.Originally posted by GePap
Given that there is no dispute that non-nuclear state signatories stated they would not seek nuclear weapons, posting that paragraphs is irrelevant.Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?
If a domestic law isn't recognized by the courts and police, that law effectively doesn't exist. Similarly, if the UNSC and the great powers does not recognize a principle of int'l law, that principle is ipso facto not a cornerstone of int'l law.Originally posted by Agathon
The rise of international law is one of the defining features of the last century. Of course states will sometimes violate or ignore it when it suits them, just as ordinary criminals do. National sovereignty is the cornerstone of international law.
The rest of your post is beside the point.Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?
Sorry, you're clearly mistaken... again.Originally posted by Last Conformist
If a domestic law isn't recognized by the courts and police, that law effectively doesn't exist. Similarly, if the UNSC and the great powers does not recognize a principle of int'l law, that principle is ipso facto not a cornerstone of int'l law.
There is a clear distinction between the legitimacy of a law and its enforcement. It's not uncommon for governments to break their own laws, but that does not mean that the law is illegitimate or serves no purpose, or even that the government in question does not recognize the legtimacy of the law in other cases. Even laws that are intermittently enforced provide the context in which thinking about the issue takes place.
At present, international law serves to frame the context in which most people think about international affairs. It didn't used to be like that. That is the present situation and is just a fact. Even the great powers are often at pains to justify what they do in terms of international law.
You are trying to BAM that the legitimacy of a law, and its recognition and adherence to by the authorities boil down to the same thing (they don't: IIRC the Nazis were tried for breaking German law). You are simply ignoring the contextual function of laws, which is independent of questions of their enforcement, and which is an ineliminable part of post-Enlightenment understanding of the law. Hence your argument is based upon a completely ridiculous assertion and you should abandon it.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did int'l law become uncool?
Ok, at least that's back on-topic.Originally posted by GePap
The "right" to have nukes exists if at all because all states are sovereign and can defend themselves. Iran never signed away its "rights." It agreed not to develop nuclear weapons and face retaliation if it chose to do so while remaining in the NPT system.
So to say that Iran does not have a "right" to nukes is incorrect.
I actually agree with the above, but I was wrong to use the word "right" since that always exists regardless of whether a treaty is signed.
LC seemed to be referring more to the moral obligation (if such a thing exists) of a state to adhere to a treaty while still a party, and his impression that it's become less and less popular lately to believe in any such obligation.Comment
-
I think that GePap is correct as well. However, the "rights" of states are many. For example, does not Israel have the "right" not to be threatened with anihilation by Iran? Do they not, in the name of self defense, have the right to take action to prevent Iran from obtaining the means to carry out the the threat made by the Iranian President? Do they not have the "right" to call upon their allies for help in this matter of self defense?
Does not the UN have the "right" to intervene to try and stop Iran from obtaining the means to carry out a threat of destruction on another soverign state? In fact, is it not the responsibility of the UN to maintain international peace by charter?
If we are going to go simply by a country's "rights" then we have much more to consider than simply the "right" of an inmature, rogue state to posess weapons of mass destruction."I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003Comment
-
That isn't what happened. They accidently bombed a residential district a night when a group of bombers misread navigational points. They thought they were over the London docks. The effects observed following this mistake convinced the Germans that this might be an effective way to run a bombing campaign.it was only after Luftwaffe thought that it couldn't win the air war it started bombing civilian targets such as London on terror runs."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
Yeah, that's the story as I heard it. Can you remember whether they had a tactic of not attacking civilian targets at all before it, or attacking civilian targets but with some artificial restrictions?Originally posted by Patroklos
They accidently bombed a residential district a night when a group of bombers misread navigational points. They thought they were over the London docks.Comment
-
I think it was just a general military protocal of the day for everyone. There were no qualms about attacking civilian targets as long as they were economic/military support related. Britian didn't participate in terror bombings until retalianting after this attack.
Although the Germans did bomb the city center of Rotterdam, not sure if there was a reason for that other than terror. I would think so, as at that point there was no good reason to terrorize the citizens."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
The terror raids in Japan stand out more noticeably.THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTFComment
-
I don't know....Tokyo was pretty bad, but so was Dresden.Originally posted by LordShiva
The terror raids in Japan stand out more noticeably."I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003Comment
-
Yes, but those were both years after these initial raids and terror bombings were considered par for the course by all sides by then.The terror raids in Japan stand out more noticeably.
We are talking about when it became acceptable, and it seems it was by accident that it first occured. Although bombing of civilian population centers were conducted in the Spanish Civil War.
Alot of leeway though. Americans would destroy 10 square miles of a city to blow up a 1/2 mile square oil refinery."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
Comment