Is there such a thing as international law?

[Thanatos 2,847]

I had a discussion in class the other day, and then the veteran's letter that SN posted made reference to it.

 

Do you guys believe that there is such a thing as international law? Obviously, there are international laws out there, but do you think that there is any moral, ethical, or any other basis for a group of nations imposing their will on another nation?

 

I submit that unless there is a body that has legitimate authority- i.e. a one-world government- then there really is no such thing as international law. Nations can sign treaties with each other, and enforce them, but all of it is in reality, whether or not they outwardly say it is, based on what is best for the individual countries involved.

[OSUViking 505]

I can't say I believe or have much confidence in international law. International law dictates that nations can't produce nuclear weapons anymore... well... Iran is making them, North Korea presumably has them, and Israel has them. And while I'm a proponent of free trade, I don't support putting the benefit of all nations ahead of the progression of our own.

 

That's coming from a believer in the apex predator ideology, but meh.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Nuclear weapons bans don't work because, as Thanatos pointed out, there is no authority or legitimate enforcement mechanism.

 

I'd be down with international law in some regards. Especially if it ends or significantly reduces armed warfare.

[NaTaS+ 958]

Obviously, there are international laws out there, but do you think that there is any moral, ethical, or any other basis for a group of nations imposing their will on another nation?

 

I submit that unless there is a body that has legitimate authority- i.e. a one-world government- then there really is no such thing as international law. Nations can sign treaties with each other, and enforce them, but all of it is in reality, whether or not they outwardly say it is, based on what is best for the individual countries involved.

 

 

I think when you have situations like the China and Tibet fiasco and the even more serious issue of N Korea with the concentration camps and you see no country taking action other than verbally denouncing it, you're spot on.

 

You have the UNSC which supposedly has universal jurisdiction, but all they can do is make recommendations. In order to affect real change you need something like a World Law which would have the ability to hold nations responsible for crimes against whatever factors - let's say human rights and specific armed conflict.

 

For all intents and purposes international law is nothing more than a group of nations that make recommendations and impose embargos on other nations they feel violate their terms all the while the governing nations are committing crimes of their own. It's a mess.

 

I'm high and tired and hope all that made sense.

Edited March 21, 2013 by NaTaS

[Thanatos 2,847]

I think when you have situations like the China and Tibet fiasco and the even more serious issue of N Korea with the concentration camps and you see no country taking action other than verbally denouncing it, you're spot on.

 

You have the UNSC which supposedly has universal jurisdiction, but all they can do is make recommendations. In order to affect real change you need something like a World Law which would have the ability to hold nations responsible for crimes against whatever factors - let's say human rights and specific armed conflict.

 

For all intents and purposes international law is nothing more than a group of nations that make recommendations and impose embargos on other nations they feel violate their terms all the while the governing nations are committing crimes of their own. It's a mess.

 

I'm high and tired and hope all that made sense.

 

That's the thing, exactly. The UN is nothing but a corporate clusterfuck of corruption. That body has done so many things that are just outright wrong that giving them the authority over any other country makes no sense.

 

Or, as a friend of mine who is a bit more conservative than I am put it: "What gives a group of countries that are all ruled by dictators the right to impose their will on a democracy?" (He was primarily concerned about the UN telling the US what to do, but I think he does have a point.)

 

So then, to turn this around, by what basis can the UN or the US tell Iran or North Korea that they can't have nuclear weapon programs? I really think, as much as I dislike it, that the only reason is because of might.

 

Not that might makes right, as the saying goes, but might *gives* you the right to tell a nation what it can and cannot do. Not the moral right, but the simple practical right- I can make things very bad for you if you don't do what I say.

 

Which I don't like the moral or ethical implications of that stance, but I see no other way that it could work in the real world.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Thanatos19

[CARDINAL 205]

I had a discussion in class the other day, and then the veteran's letter that SN posted made reference to it.

 

Do you guys believe that there is such a thing as international law? Obviously, there are international laws out there, but do you think that there is any moral, ethical, or any other basis for a group of nations imposing their will on another nation?

 

I submit that unless there is a body that has legitimate authority- i.e. a one-world government- then there really is no such thing as international law. Nations can sign treaties with each other, and enforce them, but all of it is in reality, whether or not they outwardly say it is, based on what is best for the individual countries involved.

 

There is a body of different international laws, dealing with specific areas of concern, but since the UN has no police force or army to enforce certain decisions, than it's really in name only, unless countries choose to enforce it themselves out of moral duty or that they have little influence in the world unless they follow those decisions!

[OSUViking 505]

[CARDINAL 205]

 

Do you even know what international law is?

[OSUViking 505]

Good time to try out my Cardinal impression:

 

International law is a set of laws that applies internationally!

[Thanatos 2,847]

I don't get how this guy is allowed on the internet.

 

I even clarified in my original post: "Obviously there are international laws..." and yet that part seems to have completely gone over his head.