NationStates Jolt Archive

In the past century, standards of international law have developed following the mass slaughter of the two World Wars. This is evidenced particularily by the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights. These actions have established specific standards for what is acceptable in warfare and how nations are to treat immigrants, asylum seekers, and diplomats. However, I see this as a breach of national soverignty and an oppression of the minority. Since most nations in the world agree with these standards, the few who do not are forced to accept them anyways and thus are subjected to the will of the others. I think that many of these world laws and standars that are not essential to world peace should be eliminated to restore national soverignty.

In the past century, standards of international law have developed following the mass slaughter of the two World Wars. This is evidenced particularily by the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights. These actions have established specific standards for what is acceptable in warfare and how nations are to treat immigrants, asylum seekers, and diplomats. ...
The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with treatment of immigrants, asylum seekers, and diplomats. And what's so pernicious in trying to establishthe laws of war? Or the countries should be permitted to kill prisoners of war, sink hospital ships, and carry out reprisal killings of civilians?

The UDHR is not a legally binding international agreement. It is nothing more than a wish list.
... However, I see this as a breach of national soverignty and an oppression of the minority. Since most nations in the world agree with these standards, the few who do not are forced to accept them anyways and thus are subjected to the will of the others. I think that many of these world laws and standars that are not essential to world peace should be eliminated to restore national soverignty.
What nternational laws, do you think, are essential to world peace? (BTW, what peace you're talking about? 'Me say war!')

And what's so pernicious in trying to establish the laws of war? Or the countries should be permitted to kill prisoners of war, sink hospital ships, and carry out reprisal killings of civilians?

The UDHR is not a legally binding international agreement. It is nothing more than a wish list.

1. War is war. There are no laws. Prisoners of war are prisoners because they were combatants, and thus should be allowed to be killed as they would have on the battlefield if it suits the enemy's interset. The same goes for sinking hospital ships. They are carrying wounded combatants who were engaged in the war previoulsly. Just because their wounded doesn't change their status as combatants.

2. Although the UDHR is not legally binding, international pressure by the 1st world countries sets a prescedent that it should be accepted. This has become the standard in the world, and countries who oppose it are in the minority.

1. War is war. There are no laws. Prisoners of war are prisoners because they were combatants, and thus should be allowed to be killed as they would have on the battlefield if it suits the enemy's interset. The same goes for sinking hospital ships. They are carrying wounded combatants who were engaged in the war previoulsly. Just because their wounded doesn't change their status as combatants.

2. Although the UDHR is not legally binding, international pressure by the 1st world countries sets a prescedent that it should be accepted. This has become the standard in the world, and countries who oppose it are in the minority.

1. Isn't it defined in the Geneva Convention who is a combatant, and who is a non-combatant? If there is no law, who is going to define that?

BTW, what about reprisal killings of civilians?

2. I dunno what are you talking about. Who pressurizes whom into what, and who on Earth opposes the UDHR?

1. Isn't it defined in the Geneva Convention who is a combatant, and who is a non-combatant? If there is no law, who is going to define that?

BTW, what about reprisal killings of civilians?

2. I dunno what are you talking about. Who pressurizes whom into what, and who on Earth opposes the UDHR?

1. It is defined who is a combatant, however, it is too strict on what can and cannot be done to prisoners (who are combatants). I say; if you are a combatant, anything goes. Killings of civilians (in mass quantities) does need to be illegal, but is one of the only things that should be outlawed.

2. I'm mainly talking about the UN and its policy here. It creates standards for wars and international treatment, and most small nations in the UN have little say in the matter because of the five with veto power on the security council.

The Geneva convention was signed so that countries could expect their POWs to be treated fairly (as in get fed not worked to death or tortured)
As for countries being forced to abide by International law that is preposterous. The United States refuses to recognize the Internation Criminal Court in Hague and has made it a requirment that if you wish to recieve aid from them (The government that is) you must agree to giving imunity to US troops for war crimes (as in they cannot be charged).

1. It is defined who is a combatant, however, it is too strict on what can and cannot be done to prisoners (who are combatants). I say; if you are a combatant, anything goes. Killings of civilians (in mass quantities) does need to be illegal, but is one of the only things that should be outlawed.

2. I'm mainly talking about the UN and its policy here. It creates standards for wars and international treatment, and most small nations in the UN have little say in the matter because of the five with veto power on the security council.


1. So, some kind of law is necessary, then, if we have to outlaw killing civilians?

BTW, do you think that the Nuremberg Trials were legal? If yes, what was the legal basis?

2. The UN creates nothing -- its member states do. International law consists of international treaties, custom, and general principles of law -- nothing more, nothing less.

Nobody pressurizes small countries into joining the UN. It is voluntary.

1. So, some kind of law is necessary, then, if we have to outlaw killing civilians?

BTW, do you think that the Nuremberg Trials were legal? If yes, what was the legal basis?

2. The UN creates nothing -- its member states do. International law consists of international treaties, custom, and general principles of law -- nothing more, nothing less.

Nobody pressurizes small countries into joining the UN. It is voluntary.

I have to agree with Olantia here.

In the past century, standards of international law have developed following the mass slaughter of the two World Wars. This is evidenced particularily by the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights.

First of all, while there have been amendments to the Conventions both Geneva & Hague, they have been around longer than the two WW's. As for the Declaration of Human Rights it was written by a Canadian for the United Nations and it should be strictly followed.

First of all, while there have been amendments to the Conventions both Geneva & Hague, they have been around longer than the two WW's. As for the Declaration of Human Rights it was written by a Canadian for the United Nations and it should be strictly followed.

I agree steph that it should be followed but what should be done to the nations that don't?

In the past century, standards of international law have developed following the mass slaughter of the two World Wars. This is evidenced particularily by the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights. These actions have established specific standards for what is acceptable in warfare and how nations are to treat immigrants, asylum seekers, and diplomats. However, I see this as a breach of national soverignty and an oppression of the minority. Since most nations in the world agree with these standards, the few who do not are forced to accept them anyways and thus are subjected to the will of the others. I think that many of these world laws and standars that are not essential to world peace should be eliminated to restore national soverignty.
For a good discussion of just this thing, read: http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf.

We are talking about it on another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431814).