Expecting countries not to violate international law is like expecting a dog to not eat a three-course meal: they won't when you're watching and ready to hold them back, but as soon as they know you won't do much you better believe those dishes will be licked clean.
The problem here is: the UN was specifically designed to have no ability to enforce any laws. It was the only way to even create it in the first place. Otherwise you'd have the US and Russia do everything in their power to either not let the UN form or destroy it afterwards. Just like with the ICC.
We need a new international body, something combining the UN, ICC, and more. But that will only be possible after the US Empire collapses. Russia is a problem too, but it's too weak to realistically do anything on its own. At best it'll slow things down.
Apartheid in South Africa was ended because nations chose individually to apply sanctions to oppose the inhuman conditions in the country. You don't need world police to enforce international law, it has meaning and substance through countries choosing to stand up for decency.
Without international law, and rubbishing standards of decency as meaningless without a global world police, leads down a very dark path. The horrors of the mid 20th century, like the holocaust and atrocities committed by Japan, among many other examples, happened under a might makes right mentality. Many international laws about crimes against humanity were a response to this to prevent it being repeated, because it is utterly horrific
10 Comments
binux@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 1d
Expecting countries not to violate international law is like expecting a dog to not eat a three-course meal: they won't when you're watching and ready to hold them back, but as soon as they know you won't do much you better believe those dishes will be licked clean.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 16 pts · 1d
The League of Nations condemns Germany for rebuilding their military in violation of international law!
Angular@crazypeople.online · 15 pts · 1d
Well, without consequences why should anyone care?!?
Pringles@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 1d
International law 101: International law does not exist, as it are not laws but agreements nobody is held accountable for.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 1d
The UN isn't supposed to enforce things, it's there to allow dialogue between nations.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 1d
Is Interpol going to arrest them?
No enforcement, no law.
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
The problem here is: the UN was specifically designed to have no ability to enforce any laws. It was the only way to even create it in the first place. Otherwise you'd have the US and Russia do everything in their power to either not let the UN form or destroy it afterwards. Just like with the ICC.
We need a new international body, something combining the UN, ICC, and more. But that will only be possible after the US Empire collapses. Russia is a problem too, but it's too weak to realistically do anything on its own. At best it'll slow things down.
eyesaremosaics@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
Apartheid in South Africa was ended because nations chose individually to apply sanctions to oppose the inhuman conditions in the country. You don't need world police to enforce international law, it has meaning and substance through countries choosing to stand up for decency.
Without international law, and rubbishing standards of decency as meaningless without a global world police, leads down a very dark path. The horrors of the mid 20th century, like the holocaust and atrocities committed by Japan, among many other examples, happened under a might makes right mentality. Many international laws about crimes against humanity were a response to this to prevent it being repeated, because it is utterly horrific
multifariace@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Yeah. Me too.
bad1080@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
it's almost like without enforcement laws are just words