The Death Of International Law?

So,what we should do is,ignore the successes,concentrate on the failures and get rid of the whole thing.Sounds like a good plan to me.

I mean,who needs anything like this;
Global safety standards for all automobiles.
The ability to phone anywhere in the world.
The ability to watch news and events from around the world.
Traveling with ease because you have a passport.
Aircraft laws concerning security and safety.
Being protected from torture etc at the hands of foreign police.
Having access to an embassy when in another country.
Health regulations.
International trade.

International law isn't perfect,but its better than having nothing at all.

None of those have anything to do with international relations. None of that has to do with how nations relate to each other in any way, it's just a series of treaties signed. If Angola stopped honoring Lithuanian passports, no one is going to step in and force them to. It's not a law- it's just an agreement.

reply to post by SuperViking

None of those have anything to do with international relations. None of that has to do with how nations relate to each other in any way, it's just a series of treaties signed. If Angola stopped honoring Lithuanian passports, no one is going to step in and force them to. It's not a law- it's just an agreement.

I never said they had something to do with international relations and said they have something to do with international law.

These agreements are part of IL,they are upheld by IL.
In your hypothetical scenario of Angola and Lithuania,the UN would have every right to step in and force them,the only time they wouldn't is if Angola removed themselves from UN membership.

The Japanese men being held by the North Koreans cannot appeal to a Japanese embassy,they cannot appeal to the UN.But they could if Vietnam or Thailand were holding them prisoner.It still takes negotiation skills,but precedings would move a lot quicker and would be less precarious.

International Laws help in more ways than you're willing to admit.Without it TV,radio,the internet,trade,travel etc would be very different indeed.

You want international law to be applied to IR, though- that's not going to happen.

The UN would not do # in the instance that Angola did something. The UN only works when it supports the interests of nations in power- and even then they disagree half the time- it does not and will not do things for some vague moral "right". It doesn't happen.

International law can do whatever for communication or travel, who gives a # about that? That is good for every participating nation's economy: It's in their interests to support. When they start having clashing interests (IR), that law becomes pointless.

Is the thrust of your argument really revolving around safer cars? Or is about how nations relate to each other?

reply to post by SuperViking

The UN only works when it supports the interests of nations in power- and even then they disagree half the time- it does not and will not do things for some vague moral "right". It doesn't happen.

So who's interest was/is it in to help out in El Salvador,Mozambique,Nambia,Somalia,Kashmir and Cambodia,to raise 100s of millions each year to help children all over the world,to help reduce diseases in Africa such as malaria,to send humanitarian aid around the world,to free children from becoming slaves and soldiers,to fight slavery etc etc??

Are such things only cared about by the smaller nations or the powerful nations too??




[edit on 3-11-2008 by jakyll]

Originally posted by jakyll

So who's interest was/is it in to help out in El Salvador,Mozambique,Nambia,Somalia,Kashmir and Cambodia,to raise 100s of millions each year to help children all over the world,to help reduce diseases in Africa such as malaria,to send humanitarian aid around the world,to free children from becoming slaves and soldiers,to fight slavery etc etc??

Are such things only cared about by the smaller nations or the powerful nations too??




[edit on 3-11-2008 by jakyll]

What do you mean, who's interests? Many nations have a vested interest in the stability of bordering nations or nations with natural resources. The US and Western Europe had a vested interest in keeping nations from becoming Soviet satellites.

You really think that was done out of kindness of their hearts? The world doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't.

reply to post by SuperViking


So now you change your argument.

'Nations in power' or 'many nations',which is it??

You said,

The UN only works when it supports the interests of nations in power

Which of the many African and South American nations are 'nations in power'?

Which powerful nation borders El Salvador or Cambodia?

The US and Western Europe had a vested interest in keeping nations from becoming Soviet satellites.

Correction.Only the US.
The Yanks are the ones still scared of the Ruskies.Western Europe is open to Russian relations and the US doesn't like it.

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by SuperViking

 

So now you change your argument.

'Nations in power' or 'many nations',which is it??

I didn't change it at all. Many nations of power have interests.

You said,

The UN only works when it supports the interests of nations in power

Which of the many African and South American nations are 'nations in power'?

Many nations in power have vested interest in those regions- I mean, Africa was a colonial playground until very recently, you know. And the continent still has many strategic resources.

Which powerful nation borders El Salvador or Cambodia?

They don't need border them to have interest in them, but that is sometimes a corresponding reason.

The US and Western Europe had a vested interest in keeping nations from becoming Soviet satellites.

Correction.Only the US.
The Yanks are the ones still scared of the Ruskies.Western Europe is open to Russian relations and the US doesn't like it.

Um, no. Read up on your history- the last 10 years mean very little. Russia has consistently been a specter threatening Europe since the Romanovs took over. I can't even believe you just said that- again what is your background in international relations?

hi Ive just been reading your thread & i don't profess to begin to understand a large amount of what your talking about, however i would just like to add, I'm an idealist i guess & am proud to be, after all take a look threw the ages people who really made a mark on the world often were just that they believed in change & a more peaceful way & even though some of them were taken out by various underhanded dealings, their legacies live on. Sorry but i also feel that america & uk where im from has got far to arrogant in its dealings with the rest of the world & i feel that perhaps now the balance needs to be re addressed with a new approach I'm hoping that Obama gets in & that he really does mean what he says about empowering people all over the world, about teaching acceptance & understanding & diplomacy cos the other way has got us all in a fine mess now hasn't it,& sorry as for freeing the iraqi people of a tyrant i think if he posed such an enormous threat then surely it would have been far better to send in special forces to take him out & his regime even if it took loads of time & a few casualties along the way it would have been far better than so many innocents being killed & wounded on so many levels 7all the poor soldiers who have suffered such appaling war experiences,on so many levels & still do when they return because of lack of help etc, & to stir the countrys up as much as this war has,after all its made more people into terrorists than there was before,dam bushes shock & awe,it is totally wrong however we look at it. ok please don't lay into me over my naivety as i believe we need a new way now the other way is old & proven to not work this world needs re balancing then just maybe we can turn it around.

Originally posted by jakyll

The Yanks are the ones still scared of the Ruskies.Western Europe is open to Russian relations and the US doesn't like it.

Your kidding, right....

Western Europe's only interest in Russia is the hope that they repay all the loans that have been given to them. European banks are in worse shape than American banks, hard to believe, with loans to Russia and several other east European countries. Falling oil and gas prices have wreaked the Russian economy.

Putan has tried to place blame on the USA and the sub-prime market. I'd tell him its the $65 a barrel oil used to finance a nation based on $150 a barrel.

This response isn't really about international law, but it is about international banking.

I'm waiting to see the Russian Mafia take over Europe. They are realy going to enjoy all the UN money donated for all the children. The UN being such a fantastic organization with justice and moral fiber and all. At least 2 cents of every dollar donated actualy gets to those poor Chillinz' Yup, let let the UN decide all the laws in this world and let the world courts take care of all our legal problems. They'll surely do it just exactly perfect! Oh and by the way.....I think I'm going to be the next Leader of the Church of Galactic light and power!!!!


Zindo

reply to post by cosmiccat


That route of idealism was already tried and failed in the early part of the 20th century. Failed SPECTACULARLY- much worse than any failures realpolitick has experienced. Obama won't do what he was spouting (not all of it) because it's not practical to do when looking out for American interests (and that's his job).

reply to post by hinky

Western Europe's only interest in Russia is the hope that they repay all the loans that have been given to them. European banks are in worse shape than American banks, hard to believe, with loans to Russia and several other east European countries. Falling oil and gas prices have wreaked the Russian economy.

Britain is taking steps in the direction of Russia.

Russia is well-equipped to withstand the financial crisis, and foreign investors are not jumping ship, British Business Secretary Peter Mandelson said Wednesday as he wrapped up a four-day visit that showed significant improvement in London's troubled ties with Moscow.

Thanks to its oil- and gas-financed surplus, "Russia is better placed than others to weather the storm," Mandelson told reporters, adding that he felt common sense prevailed in the government.

Mandelson also said he hoped that "my visit will intensify a thawing of the difficult political relationship that we have experienced."

In the first visit of a British Cabinet member since February 2007, Mandelson on Tuesday held talks with First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov and Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, with whom he revived a steering committee for Russian-British investment that he said had been defunct for six years.

www.themoscowtimes.com...

A dormant body to promote trade and investment between Russia and the UK was resurrected yesterday as London and Moscow attempted to put aside political differences and "open a new chapter" in relations.

Lord Mandelson, business secretary, pledged to reorganise and strengthen the bilateral trade body after attending its first meeting in Moscow since 2002.

www.ft.com...

Britain is preparing to "sell" Georgia and hand a "victory" to Russia by agreeing to start talks on a partnership agreement between Moscow and the European Union, according to senior European diplomats.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I considered doing the Global Leadership education course at Uni. of Hawaii while I was out there...probably I wouldn't be so confused now

I like the primative native nations relations for learning as it seems to be more base and I learn faster that way and supposing stuff to figure out

The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (Andrew and Mitrokhin) is a pretty cool book - did you guys have to read that one?


So, uhm, it's not so much the death of international law if the polity agrees to make a sham of something? Like if the one side tells the other valuable intel on purpose, even if it is a P.O.'d rogue agent...wouldn't the government still be complicit for letting that info pass hands?

Meh, espionage has already been perfected probably. Wasn't Saddam Hussein really a Yemeni and Heidler an Austrian? Whassup with that?

Special Ops
Get'em guy!

The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.
These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President George W. Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.
www.iht.com...