Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: International Law

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    21

    International Law

    Just was interested in hearing some informed opinions on what you guys thought the greatest obstacles that the international system faces in the creation and maintenance of international law as well as where you guys think IL is headed in the future?

    Curious because my minor is political science and our main discussions have been international law, but I haven't agreed with many of the professors opinions.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    America, and damn proud of it!
    Posts
    3,576
    Besides the fact that there are too many dictators and warlords who would readily violate international law standards without even thinking twice about it? Besides the number of nations that would choose to be holdouts and resists attempts at international incorporation against the notion of a one world government?
    [QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
    The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

    [QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
    He should practice what he preaches.

    The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    Sooo, are you FOR or AGAINST, NATO?

    The problem with all law is that people think it's upheld by the sanctions prescribed for violations, not by the recognition of it being the "proper" way to the mindset of the people subject to the law. People don't obey the law because they fear jail - they obey the law because they recognize it as "right". The sanctions can only help that in the second line.

    In international law, the same problem occurs - and there are no sanctions since no country is actually willing to let go of its own power at the expense of someone else.

    P.S.: I want a single world government. I also recognize it'd be hard to make it work, but do not consider it impossible. Also, I'd estimate that a valid approach would be to strenghten the importance (perhaps authority would be a better word for it?) of international law as the basis for it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The great state of Missouri
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Iuris View Post
    Sooo, are you FOR or AGAINST, NATO?

    The problem with all law is that people think it's upheld by the sanctions prescribed for violations, not by the recognition of it being the "proper" way to the mindset of the people subject to the law. People don't obey the law because they fear jail - they obey the law because they recognize it as "right". The sanctions can only help that in the second line.

    In international law, the same problem occurs - and there are no sanctions since no country is actually willing to let go of its own power at the expense of someone else.

    P.S.: I want a single world government. I also recognize it'd be hard to make it work, but do not consider it impossible. Also, I'd estimate that a valid approach would be to strenghten the importance (perhaps authority would be a better word for it?) of international law as the basis for it.
    The problem with "one world government" is the neccessity of overlooking some standards for one location that are enforced with draconian measures for another.

    You're all for achieving the holy grail of "equality" correct?

    Good. We can put the the New York ACPCA in charge of animal cruelty enforcement in Africa.

    After all, giving New Yorkers prison terms for neglecting their Pit Bulls will pale in comparison to what the tribesmen will receive when they torture their goats to death by beating them with sticks.

    You are in favor of one world government, right? This does mean the enforcement of a rigid set of standards in an equal manner.

    Unless you think thier should be a difference in how laws are enforced based on culture and location? After all, we should respect the differences in culture, right? Whoops! I mean, we should enforce the equal application of this "one world government" right? Whoops! I mean we're all diverse, meaning we should all be treated the same....but different.....but equally.....according to our differences.....that......ummmmm....equal, but seperate........I mean.......alike.

    But not alike.

    We can all be governed equally in a manner that the same exacting standards can be applied regardless of our differences. This would mean that the strictly enforced rules that govern us all alike regardless of our differences in order to be applied in a fair and equal manner, should be flexible so that the strict and rigidly applied standad could be changed at will in order to allow for our diversity.

    Wait. That would mean different standards. How can the one, singular, global all encompassing government have dual standards?

    Which is it again? Help me out. I can't seem to remember.

    This one world government "doublespeak" is a little too Orwellian for me.
    "A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." - Irving Kristol

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    5
    I believe that international law or organizations such as UN and NATO shouldn't be allowed to exist and are pretty useless at serving any function, if they were intended to serve one at all.
    The UN and NATO, although had honorable intentions, were nevertheless practical waste. The problem is that each country, ethnicity, group has its own distinct characteristics and will never unite. Take Korea and Japan. There's no way that we can maintain good relations (except for some face-saving diplomacy that achieve nothing) as we have a violent, bitter history. Still does in case of Dokdo, the Japanese refusal to apologize to Korean victims of its atrocities, etc...
    Not only that, but NATO, UN, etc... fails to resolve conflicts, tensions around the world. Take the UN. It failed to stop the Russian-Georgian conflict, several other wars, and many simmering relationships. It can only comment and conduct studies that points fingers at everybody except itself. Look at how powerless it is. It only can publish statistics used for countries to point fingers at its enemies, and form organizations like UNICEF that only creates an occasional sentimental feeling towards poor countries
    Also, there are many international laws, most of which are ignored by countries like Libya, Eritrea, Iran, and many others. They're practically worthless, and worthless because there's nobody to enforce it. The UN is a decentralized, military-powerless organization, so it can't enforce its comments.
    All in all, I oppose international organizations and international laws

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062
    Sure why not have this. I have a long laundry list of anti gay politicians, anti gay religious leaders, and members anti gay organizations that I would love to see tried and executed in the world court.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,715
    In a word; religion. People will find compromise in most other places. But not here.
    “But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? ” ~ Mark Twain

    "Those who are easily shocked... should be shocked more often" ~ Mae West

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •