Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Quote:
Me: um...says who?
I`m no legal expert, so please educate me, but I would think that IF you agree with the idea of international law then you must have some sort of legislator to determine those laws and some sort of adjudicator to determine whether those laws have been broken. The UN performs those functions (in a haphazard, imperfect way).
|
Why does the UN have to be the only choice? The world existed before the UN. The fact that it is the "only game in town" at the moment doesnt mean that it has to remain that way.
Why not a broader (worldwide) version of NATO?
|
Because Nato is not law. It is merely a treaty between nations. Treaties can become basis or frameworks for laws but are not laws themselves. I suppose that Nato could be used to police international law but it has no structures to enable the enactment of laws or act as a judiciary. To incorporate those structures would change Nato so radically that it would more closely resemble the UN than itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Quote:
|
We understand that and work within their limitations or seek to improve them. We don`t just point at their deficiencies and declare the whole system should be torn down.
|
Unless the foundation includes respect for self determination of all people, the rest doesnt matter. The foundation itself is corrupt. That is why it has to be torn down and rebuilt. |
I think we may be arguing at cross purposes.
My argument includes the premise that international law is a good thing to be encouraged, improved and expanded upon.
Your argument (if I`ve got you right) is that international law (as it is currently framed and understood) is inherrently flawed as it offers the same protections to democracies and non-democracies alike. You would agree with the idea (I think) that all international law should be binned and new laws drafted starting with an enshrinement of self-determination. And that non-democratic nations would enjoy none of the protections under these laws until they had become democratic. Have I got that right?
Global self determination is a noble goal, I agree but how best to achieve it? Our argument is less about UN/no UN/new&betterUN and more about engagement versus confrontation. Do you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Quote:
Me: We cant do both at once?
No. How could the US argue that dictator should stand down because he is a dictator whilst at the same time supporting dictators elsewhere? It would be/is hypocritical.
|
So it is better to support ALL dictators everywhere? That makes no sense.
Hypocrisy is irrelevant. The fact that you cant stop ALL rapists doesnt mean you should not stop the ones you can. it is a war of attrition. |
Your analogy is poor. A better one would be:
The fact that you intend to arrest and punish
some rapists means you must not aid and abet other rapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Cooperating with the unelected government is hardly the best method to make them give up power.
... How does feeding the non-elected government make them more likely to leave?
|
By linking aid/cooperation to improvements in goverance