There is no such thing as "international law", and never has been. Land belongs to people who can control it, and always has.
Nazi says that, yes. That was the cornerstone of that ideology and good people hope they will be defeated again.
[flagged]
US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
21–30 of 65 posts
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#22US knows its power matters more than international law, UN chief. title needs to be fixed as above and becomes BAU.
Knowing and acting on it will have grave consequences though. The US's main allies will stop buying American military equipment for one, trade will go down and the largest economic block in the world will align itself closer to China (who does not directly threaten them with invasion). What a self own. As a European who's been as continue to be against Chinese authoritarianism, I have to admit that China looks like t…
What I find almost satisfying to watch is how the US throws away the soft power it spent nearly a century building for very little benefit in return.
The thing is that soft power is extremely effective. Many other countries, including China, try hard at acquiring a fraction of the soft power US naturally had.
Trumps administration, sooner or later, will pass. Whether it is voted away, or if it turns into a form of dictatorship, at some point in the future it will not be there anymore. The US won't be able to return to "how things were" when that happens. New trade deals, new alliances, a different ordering of things will be in place.
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nazi says that, yes. That was the cornerstone of that ideology and good people hope they will be defeated again.
Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology. Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity.
Why indeed.
And yet: https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA...
The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished.
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#24As they say, law is for the poor, little people. International law even more so. For national laws, there are enforcement mechanisms. If you break a national law, there is a court deciding on punishment and an executive punishing you according to that decision. With international law, there might be a court, but often there isn't even a court. Sometimes there is the UN general assembly, UN security council or a simil…
It's sort of true. I mean, factually true for sure.
Equally, I think international law was a useful reference point for everyone, including the US. My prediction is that US's intoxication with its own power now, and disdain for international law, will lead to a decay of its power, and more challenges that will be costly to fend off.
So while I agree to some extent international law was always a fiction, it's also true that the US will a real price for destroying it.
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#25This has always been the case, and not just the US either. International law has no enforcement mechanism - it depends on willingness of countries to follow it or force others to. It does not have a proper system of courts to decide the law. Different bits of it can clash with each other. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...
> International law has no enforcement mechanism International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. > it depends on willingness of countries to follow it or force others to. All law depends on the willingness of its subjects to follow it, and failing that of its other subjects to force them to. This is not unique to international law. Some systems of law (e.g., typical modern national criminal law) may have a…
> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms.
That's rather naïve.
How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined?
US, for quite some time, is the international law.
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> International law has no enforcement mechanism International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. > it depends on willingness of countries to follow it or force others to. All law depends on the willingness of its subjects to follow it, and failing that of its other subjects to force them to. This is not unique to international law. Some systems of law (e.g., typical modern national criminal law) may have a…
> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. That's rather naïve. How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined? US, for quite some time, is the international law.
What about when a police officer gets qualified immunity after murdering someone? Does this mean the US has no enforcement mechanisms?
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology. Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity.
Why indeed. And yet: https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA... The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rig…
Did I say that? I just said no one wants to give power over their land. Countries would want international law to protect them. That's why international law exists.
I don't think there is any country which explicitly mentions that international law would supersede their law.
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> International law has no enforcement mechanism International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. > it depends on willingness of countries to follow it or force others to. All law depends on the willingness of its subjects to follow it, and failing that of its other subjects to force them to. This is not unique to international law. Some systems of law (e.g., typical modern national criminal law) may have a…
> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. That's rather naïve. How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined? US, for quite some time, is the international law.
> That's rather naïve.
No, its factual.
> How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined?
Had you read the entire comment you were responding to, you would note that as well as pointing out that international law has enforcement mechanisms, that I pointed out how the executive part of those differs from what many national criminal law systems use (which is a real difference), and moreover the problem they have with conflicts of interests between any of the available executive agents with many important enforcement issues (a situation which also happens with national criminal law systems even where, unlike international law, they have a nominally-dedicated executive body for enforcement purposes rather than relying on the adjudicative/determinative body calling for an ad hoc posse the way that international law generally works.)
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. That's rather naïve. How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined? US, for quite some time, is the international law.
What about when a police officer gets qualified immunity after murdering someone? Does this mean the US has no enforcement mechanisms?
Didn't see that one coming.
Not sure what your agenda is but that's just the law *enforcement* doing the enforcing part. You can argue that it is unjust, that's a separate issue.
Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. That's rather naïve. How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined? US, for quite some time, is the international law.
What about when a police officer gets qualified immunity after murdering someone? Does this mean the US has no enforcement mechanisms?
Or what happens when crimes are committed by, or at the direction and with the protection of the President of the United States.
I think most people would not argue that “US federal criminal law has no enforcement mechanism”, they would argue that “US federal criminal law has a significant practical enforcement problem where enforcement of the law conflicts with interests of the chief executive”.