NationStates Jolt Archive

I have never understood the idea of illegal in international law, I can understand immoral but not illegal. You can not accuse the worlds strongest nation of being illegal because it makes almost all the rules. Yes you can have a bunch of smaller countries get together and say this is international law but how are you going to enforce it? How will the EU ever be able to enforce international law against the US, China or Russia? It is impossible to force countries who are more powerful than you to do what you want. There is no such thing as international law until you have the ability to enforce it. The big three countries above may listen to what other countries want sometimes but if the US, China and Russia does not want to do something there is not a dam thing anyone can do about it. Therefore international law and the idea of illegal wars are bullshit. I think people would be better off saying immoral instead of illegal.

International law is used to prosecute weaker countries only.

International law is used to prosecute weaker countries only.
Yes but I am always hearing the Iraq war is illegal. The Iraq war may be immoral but its not illegal.

Yes but I am always hearing the Iraq war is illegal. The Iraq war may be immoral but its not illegal.

According to the arbitrary international law that says if you conduct a war without UN approval, it's illegal, it is indeed illegal. However, it is completely moral.

However, it is completely moral.

How so?

How so?

We liberated the Iraqi people.

We liberated the Iraqi people.

we could also liberate the people of pakistan from an oppressive military dictator, oh wait we support that guy.

Theres also Saudi Arabia, a brutal Wahhabist monarchy, that we support whole-heartedly

We liberated the Iraqi people.

And killed untold thousands in the process.

According to the arbitrary international law that says if you conduct a war without UN approval, it's illegal, it is indeed illegal. However, it is completely moral.

So what is the point of a law that can not be enforced? Almost all wars are illegal wars. An unenforcable law is not a law it is a opinion.

So what is the point of a law that can not be enforced? Almost all wars are illegal wars. An unenforcable law is not a law it is a opinion.

no, Korea was a legal war, so was the war against serbia. Both were NATO/US led operations

We liberated the Iraqi people.

I have to disagree with you on this. I think Bush has given a new meaning to liberation and freedom. I don't think an ethnic civil war is my idea of liberation or freedom

no, Korea was a legal war, so was the war against serbia. Both were NATO/US led operations

I said almost not all.

I said almost not all.

wars not sanctioned by UN since UN's creaton: Iraq war II, vietnam...thats about it, both were bullshit

International law is used to prosecute weaker countries only.

Sorry that is not accurate. The United States has lost cases of International law. We have been ordered by Courts to lower our tariffs by International Courts. We have yet to follow the Courts orders.

wars not sanctioned by UN since UN's creaton: Iraq war II, vietnam...thats about it, both were bullshit

I agree but in this world what international body is going to stop the US from starting a war. To call a war illegal is misguided because in this world unfortunately might makes right(until you have figured out your in an unwinnable war)

I agree but in this world what international body is going to stop the US from starting a war. To call a war illegal is misguided because in this world unfortunately might makes right(until you have figured out your in an unwinnable war)

it can't, the problem with the UN is that its toothless.

wars not sanctioned by UN since UN's creaton: Iraq war II, vietnam...thats about it, both were bullshit

You must be joking or just pig ignorant. There've been heaps of wars not sanctioned by the UN since it's creation.

You must be joking or just pig ignorant. There've been heaps of wars not sanctioned by the UN since it's creation.

not from the US there hasn't.

I have never understood the idea of illegal in international law, I can understand immoral but not illegal. You can not accuse the worlds strongest nation of being illegal because it makes almost all the rules. Yes you can have a bunch of smaller countries get together and say this is international law but how are you going to enforce it? How will the EU ever be able to enforce international law against the US, China or Russia? It is impossible to force countries who are more powerful than you to do what you want. There is no such thing as international law until you have the ability to enforce it. The big three countries above may listen to what other countries want sometimes but if the US, China and Russia does not want to do something there is not a dam thing anyone can do about it. Therefore international law and the idea of illegal wars are bullshit. I think people would be better off saying immoral instead of illegal.

Here're a couple of bit that explain how international law is enforced.

Apart from a state's natural inclination to uphold certain norms, the force of international law has always come from the pressure that states put upon one another to behave consistently and to honor their obligations. As with any system of law, many violations of international law obligations are overlooked. If addressed, it is almost always purely through diplomacy and the consequences upon an offending state's reputation. Though violations may be common in fact, states try to avoid the appearance of having disregarded international obligations. States may also unilaterally adopt sanctions against one another such as the severance of economic or diplomatic ties, or through reciprocal action. In some cases, domestic courts may render judgment against a foreign state (the realm of private international law) for an injury, though this is a complicated area of law where international law intersects with domestic law. States have the right to employ force in self-defense against an offending state that has used force to attack its territory or political independence. States may also use force in collective self-defense, where force is used against another state. The state that force is used against must authorize the participation of third-states in its self-defense. This right is recognized in the United Nations Charter.

The Security Council can pass resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter to recommend "Pacific Resolution of Disputes." Such resolutions are not binding under international law, though they usually are expressive of the council's convictions. In rare cases, the Security Council can pass resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter related to "threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression," and these are legally binding under international law, and can be followed up with economic sanctions, military action, and similar uses of force through the auspices of the United Nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

Does that help clear things up?

not from the US there hasn't.

Which isn't what you said before.

Which isn't what you said before.

its what i meant before, sorry.

its what i meant before, sorry.

;)

BTW, even that's not quite accurate. Panama, Greneda, Kosovo, and even Afghanistan* were also not officially UN sanctioned US wars. In fact Korea and the Gulf War (Gulf War I, if you insist ;)) have been the only specifically UN sanctioned US wars.

*There was Resolution 1333 against Afghanistan prior to the current war, but there wasn't a specific resolution authorising it.

;)

BTW, even that's not quite accurate. Panama, Greneda, Kosovo, and even Afghanistan* were also not officially UN sanctioned US wars. In fact Korea and the Gulf War (Gulf War I, if you insist ;)) have been the only specifically UN sanctioned US wars.

*There was Resolution 1333 against Afghanistan prior to the current war, but there wasn't a specific resolution authorising it.

wtf? I thought Afghanistan was led by NATO with the UNSCs blessing. I also thought Kosovo was UN sanctioned and NATO led, and Panama/greneda were "policing actions" or "conflicts" not wars;)

wtf? I thought Afghanistan was led by NATO with the UNSCs blessing.

We didn't take it to the UNSC.

I also thought Kosovo was UN sanctioned and NATO led,

Not at all. In fact Yugoslavia filed suit with the ICJ against the US and NATO on those exact grounds. http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/iPress1999/ipresscom9933_iyus_19990602.htm

and Panama/greneda were "policing actions" or "conflicts" not wars;)

Nope. They were wars.

I don't know why the UN was so pissed about Iraq if they knew that Sadaam's regime violated many treaties and such after the Gulf War(the current Iraq war is not the Gulf War. It's the Iraq War. Just to clear that up for the ignorant). Maybe it was the whole Oil for Food fiasco.

Anyway, the idea of the UN kinda scares me. If beauracracy on a national scale is almost always a mess, a world one would be worse.

Big government= :(
Small government= :)

I don't know why the UN was so pissed about Iraq if they knew that Sadaam's regime violated many treaties and such after the Gulf War

The main contention is that none of the resolutions specifically and unquestionably sanctioned the war.

(the current Iraq war is not the Gulf War. It's the Iraq War. Just to clear that up for the ignorant). Maybe it was the whole Oil for Food fiasco.

There's little agreement on the name of this war.

Yes but I am always hearing the Iraq war is illegal. The Iraq war may be immoral but its not illegal.
It is illegal under treaties WHICH THE UNITED STATES SIGNED. Quit your bitching. It's illegal, always has been, and will go down in history as such.

It is illegal under treaties WHICH THE UNITED STATES SIGNED. Quit your bitching. It's illegal, always has been, and will go down in history as such.

Again, that is not entierly clear. The UN resolutions, especially 1441 can be read either way.

I don't know why the UN was so pissed about Iraq if they knew that Sadaam's regime violated many treaties and such after the Gulf War(the current Iraq war is not the Gulf War. It's the Iraq War. Just to clear that up for the ignorant). Maybe it was the whole Oil for Food fiasco.

Or maybe it was the false prete... eeehm, apologies to the republicans: the "honest mistake" Bush made when he thought there were WoMD and he needed to invade now.

It is illegal under treaties WHICH THE UNITED STATES SIGNED. Quit your bitching. It's illegal, always has been, and will go down in history as such.

Then why does the world not do something? Answer because they can't you can not have a law if it is not enforcable. Treaties and laws no one follows and can not be enforced are just words on paper. Their is no such thing as international law and you know it. Many people have fanatasies about international law but that does it make any more real than the words in a fairy tale story.

Then why does the world not do something?

Because Anglachel and Anguirel has overstated the case. To repeat myself, the legality or illegality of the Iraq war is unclear.

Answer because they can't you can not have a law if it is not enforcable. Treaties and laws no one follows and can not be enforced are just words on paper. Their is no such thing as international law and you know it. Many people have fanatasies about international law but that does it make any more real than the words in a fairy tale story.

To say that international law is not followed or enforced, is by and large not true. There are certainly instances where it is not. However the large part of it is. And breaches are punished - not every occurance, but neither are all breaches of national law punished.

Check the ICJ's decisions (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm) for some enlightening reading. :)

According to the arbitrary international law that says if you conduct a war without UN approval, it's illegal, it is indeed illegal.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. By ratifying the UN Charter, all members of the UN agreed to it.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. By ratifying the UN Charter, all members of the UN agreed to it.

It is arbitrary in it's enforcement. International law only has real teeth for the smaller nations of the world because it only applies to nations which, at the end of the day, might face coercive force if they fail to abide by the rules. The US, UK, virtually any country in Western Europe, China, Russia, Japan, India, etc(read: major world powers and first world democracies) are basically bound only by a handshake and a wink. The international law in general(and the UN in specific) lacks the ability or the will to actually enforce resolutions against middle-tier countries most of the time, what on earth makes you think they will enforce against the countries who provide the lion share of funding and troops?

The UN is designed to be an arbitrary body that is unable to police larger nations. The use of force against any of the permanent UNSC members is basically impossible, as is the use of force against any country one of those members is allied with(so that removes any NATO nation). That inability to enforce rules makes the rules themselves arbitrary. Beyond the general problems with enforcement, the internation law is made more arbitrary by the fact that nations cannot be imprisioned or effectively fined, there is no international police force, international courts are a joke, and enforcement is crippled by politics.

Think about it on a more individual level. Would you consider arbitrary a law which was unevenly applied, sometimes, if the criminal was unpopular enough, and only as long as they didn't have friends in high places? Or we can approach from a more western perspective. Would you consider arbitrary a law which was enacted by a largely unelected, undemocratic, and unaccountable body? Would you even consider such a law to be valid?

It is arbitrary in it's enforcement. International law only has real teeth for the smaller nations of the world because it only applies to nations which, at the end of the day, might face coercive force if they fail to abide by the rules. The US, UK, virtually any country in Western Europe, China, Russia, Japan, India, etc(read: major world powers and first world democracies) are basically bound only by a handshake and a wink. The international law in general(and the UN in specific) lacks the ability or the will to actually enforce resolutions against middle-tier countries most of the time, what on earth makes you think they will enforce against the countries who provide the lion share of funding and troops?

The UN is designed to be an arbitrary body that is unable to police larger nations. The use of force against any of the permanent UNSC members is basically impossible, as is the use of force against any country one of those members is allied with(so that removes any NATO nation). That inability to enforce rules makes the rules themselves arbitrary. Beyond the general problems with enforcement, the internation law is made more arbitrary by the fact that nations cannot be imprisioned or effectively fined, there is no international police force, international courts are a joke, and enforcement is crippled by politics.

Think about it on a more individual level. Would you consider arbitrary a law which was unevenly applied, sometimes, if the criminal was unpopular enough, and only as long as they didn't have friends in high places? Or we can approach from a more western perspective. Would you consider arbitrary a law which was enacted by a largely unelected, undemocratic, and unaccountable body? Would you even consider such a law to be valid?

Amen

As it stands, international law only works so far as the countries that are participating agree to participate.