Japan
Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: morvwilson
The other problem with international law, is that in order to enforce it on any offending nation, you have to over come any resistance. I have a hard time coming up with an example of this being done by economic sanctions or negotiations. This is because it is impossible to have reasonable, honest negotiations with unreasonable or dishonest people.
The quote "trust but verify" comes to mind here for me.
Usually, resistance has to be overcome by force. This is where the military comes into play.
You can't try war criminals until you first win the war.
I agree in most of your statements above sir morvwilson.
The one I'm a little unsure of, is that "you have to use force to enforce international law", in sevral cases that would itself be illegal as sevral agreemants says that only with permission from the UN security causal can one use military force in offencive role aiganst another nation.
The UN security causal will regardless give premission to do this if it is importent enugth, or automaticly give it if any nation commits genaside ect.
The problem we face when dealing with international law, is that it only apply to the nations who have signed the threaty.
Ie. we can not sanction Iran for ignoring paragraph xx unless Iran actually has committed to obeying paragraph xx by signing the threaty that defines that paragraph. Now regarding Iran they did however sign sevral international treatys, and by doing so recognise sevral parts of international law. (still large parts they have not recognised, and for this reason don't need to obey).
Hopefully there will not be a war, regimes have (unfortunately) the same right to exist as any other suveregin nation.
Democracy, Communism, Facism ect is only some of many forms and ways to govern a nation, and there is no nation who can decide how another nation shall be governed.
So, the only way we (in a legal way) can deal with them is to try to sanction them, or to deny trading with them, and this we can do as independent nations or we can try to get the world to stop trading with them as well, usually this is done in the UN security causal.
There is a few flaws with the UN security causal who causes an unbalance, first of all you have "western" nations who pr legual definition should be sanctioned but who can't because other western nations prevent it by using their veto
(ie. Israel can't be sanctioned due to US vetoes). You also have nations like China who should be sanctioned,
but who can't be sanctioned because they are way to important to the world economy.
So the nations this rules actually work for as intended are nations who do not have a major nation as its friend,
or who is generally disliked by all sides, and who "the world don't need" to be friends with.
The European Union are working this year by setting up its own independent board who will have the right to sanction a nation at own will, then all EU nations will be obligated to obey their decision. It is alot easier for EU (or the US) to make a decission like this indipendently, then to have it done in the UN, as the UN is a far more complicated organization, not to mention that several nations has veto there as well. It is also fully legual to do, as any indipendent nation or union of nations have the right to decide who they will trade with.
It is however strictly forbidden for any indipendent nation or union of nations to declare war upon
another indipendent nation or union of nations unless it is sanktioned and approved by the UN security causal.
If we shall go to the actual law, it sayes that waging offencive war is a crime aiganst humanety.
Another sidenote, in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court sevral modern and new decissions was made regarding this, including the right for the court to investigate and tryl any military serviceman from any nation,
something who in 2002 caused seven countries to vote against the treaty:
China, Libya, United States, Israel, Qatar, Iraq and Yemen voted NO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court
It is very interesting to see what countrys voted No to this treaty.
The treaty will for the ones who voted Yes anyways, help to reduse international crimes.
Some of the first decission made by the court, was that any servisman from any nation, regardless if his nation voted yes or no, can be arrested and be brought by force to the court for tryl if suspected for war crimes.
As far as the court is conserned, this means that any soldier can be arrested on any soil and moved by force to this tribunal for tryal, something who was reinforced by 2 other international agreemants made during 2006.
All the nations who voted No in 2002 protested aiganst the decission, but was over ruled.
Pr definition, the nations who voted No are not part of the treaty, but any servisman from that nation risk being arrested and brought to the court regardless of nationalety if suspected for comitting a war crime.
Sevral (western) named individuals are internationaly wanted by the court.
Sevral of them are suspects in ongoing torture or kidnapping investigations.
So, International law is very very advansed law, as it includes a combination of already existing treatys, new treatys and treatys not recognised by all nations, and Evan treatys not recognised by all nations but who still practicly count for all nations.
< Message edited by Japan -- 1/10/2009 12:26:20 AM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: OT: HBO's Taking Chance - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread