NationStates Jolt Archive

In an effort to find some good topics for discussion, I am turning to the Political Compass quiz. The majority of us have taken this quiz and put thought into each of these questions, so hopefully they can provide some useful debate. Maybe we will see some radical shifts in political compass scores.

At the end all votes will be tallied and the predominant votes will be entered into the political compass to find an consensus political compass score for all of General.
______________________________________________________________

For each question post how you answered (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) and give your reasoning for your answer.

Statement 6:
"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."

international law doesn't work because all the countries have different systems and ethics and everything. it could be where in one place a hospital is thought of as a bad place as the people are all sick or hurt and that must mean they have bad karma or they are weak, so killing them wouldn't matter much to the people.

international law doesn't work because all the countries have different systems and ethics and everything. it could be where in one place a hospital is thought of as a bad place as the people are all sick or hurt and that must mean they have bad karma or they are weak, so killing them wouldn't matter much to the people.

That is like saying that domestic laws don't work because people have "different systems and ethics and everything." If a nation wants to trade and be diplomatic on the international stage, they should operate by international law.

Agree, but not strongly.

If there is a genuine and urgent humanitarian purpose to the military action, it could be justified.

PS. I have a feeling that this will be the longest [Political Compass] thread yet!

Agree, but not strongly.

If there is a genuine and urgent humanitarian purpose to the military action, it could be justified.

But if humanitarian violations are being committed, surely that would constitute a violation of international law, and would justify a retaliatory attack handed down by an overseeing body. I am not saying that is what would happen, just saying what should happen if there was any sort of diplomatic accountability.

PS. I have a feeling that this will be the longest [Political Compass] thread yet!

I had that thought as well. The others never really caught on, this one might.

I said *Strongly Disagree*. I'm not going to post my reasoning for this, as I don't want to start a flame war.

International Law is a non-sequitur to begin with. Laws without the ability to enforce them, are like the 'blue laws' in several american states-nice intention, but no substance. On the whole, Governments are bound by their own laws, and by their treaties-up to a point. Military Action is a function of National Sovereignty. While other nations may disagree, and even choose to levy any number of sanctions from cessation of trade and cutting off diplomatic contact, to declaration of war themselves, International Law on the whole is irrelevant.
Strongly agree.

International Law is a non-sequitur to begin with. Laws without the ability to enforce them, are like the 'blue laws' in several american states-nice intention, but no substance. On the whole, Governments are bound by their own laws, and by their treaties-up to a point. Military Action is a function of National Sovereignty. While other nations may disagree, and even choose to levy any number of sanctions from cessation of trade and cutting off diplomatic contact, to declaration of war themselves, International Law on the whole is irrelevant.
Strongly agree.

International laws do apply to nations that are not strong enough to get around them. If we had nations who were responsible enough to abide by laws that are set down and to also work to enforce the laws, international laws would work and would make a much more peaceful world.

I said *Strongly Disagree*. I'm not going to post my reasoning for this, as I don't want to start a flame war.

Go ahead and post it, at least a flame war will attract some votes for the poll.

Go ahead and post it, at least a flame war will attract some votes for the poll.

Well, your post above pretty much said it for me!

Strongly Agree.

Reason: The military should be allowed to do anything for the country, even if it breaks some moronic international law.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."

Absolutely. If International law proves impotent (as it oft has) is it still wrong to break the letter of the law to preserve the spirit? I don't think so.

If, as is the case in Darfur, a problem does not fall under international law, it is appropriate for a country to intervene.

(re Darfur: http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2005/0304trying.htm
Sudan is not party to the ICC; therefore, the UN Security Council must endorse an ICC investigation before any Sudanese suspects can be tried in the court. Reports indicate that France and Denmark have been successful in convincing the majority of the Security Council members inclined to take action in Darfur, a slim majority in itself, to endorse the ICC role. The US is the biggest obstacle to the ICC gaining jurisdiction over the situation in Darfur, and it is unlikely to alter its position to facilitate the interjection of international law into Sudan.

If France stepped in to stop the genocide it would be illegal under international law, but it would fall under the spirit of international law.)

Go ahead and post it, at least a flame war will attract some votes for the poll.


Well, you said it!

Those who think international law is irrelevant, should go read a book.

They should consider why countries bother to claim that their actions are lawful.

They should also consider whether the raison d'etre of international law are any different from those of national law

Those who think that military action in defiance of international law is OK, also believe that individual violence in defiance of national law is OK.

It is not.