Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Yes, when and where it suits them (and not when it doesn't).
An I say it seems to suit some countries a whole lot more than others.
As said previously: to be effective, any law should always have the ability to use force, even if it doesn't have to use it in the end. International law hasn't.
It has when the international community wants it to. In some places, where only 50 years ago slaugthered each other, this seems to be working.
The UN doesn't take away sovereignity from states, it doesn't have sovereignity over states.
In certain cases, the UN can grant it's members the right, by international law, to intervene against countires, and take away their soverignity for a period.
Two examples: the unileateral withdrawal from Lebanon, the evacuation of the Gaza settlers.
Since both where miserable failures, they hardly qualify as good examples of Realpolitik. They are actually better examples of Israel comming a bit closer to complying with international law.
I responded to your statemement of fact earlier.
With little good evidence.
And those who cannot help themsleves get no help from those international regualtions, which is why when faced with threats to their national security or interests, states might disregard those regulations.
And this is a general rule? Was East Timor an exeption then?
Your claim that as a general rule, settlements were built on stolen land is still unsubstantiated, and so it doesn't stand.
Jews mainly purchased land from absentee Turkish landlords, or bought "state" land from various "officials". The land was sold without the people living on it and cultivating it knew it was happening. Bribery was often needed. Now this might have been within the laws of the time. Colonized people have always been fucked over that way. Same thing happend here in Norway. So at a point in time Norway nationalized many of the resources bought up by foreigners.
There are tons of examples of displacement of palestinians within the newly conqured territories. (going from controlling 7% to 78% of the land.) What do You think? All those refugees left by free will?
But this is history, and quite unreversable. At best, compensation should be paid for loss of land. The rest of the land, occupied in 67 is more important to discuss. So;
Late 70; The new settlement period:
As I said the International Criminal Court has ruled on this, and deemed it illegal. 400 000 israeli settlers (excluding east jerusalem) are living on the west bank are there illegally. The rules are clear, they are in the Geneva Convention.
Comapring the communism of the nineteen-eighties to the then apartheid, one notices that the USSR was killing more than a million Afghans in that decade and displacing some five millions of them, while South Africa was not; and that while there were Africans migrating to South Africa from neighbouring countries (voting with their feet) people in the Soviet bloc were dreaming of getting out of there, so I say communism was worse.
Like I said; pestilence or colera. As an ideology, I still think Apartheid is worse.
So let them recognise Israel and negociate with it now. Yet they don't.
That Saudi Prince did in 2002, This time Israel refused to negotiate.
And Sudan can opt out, and France, and every country if it so chooses, and not because of any US favours.
Sudan will face international action in the comming months. What about france?
For that to change, international law would have to change, so countries see as an advantage, not a hindrance, to their national security and interests, and so opting-out is not allowed to no none.
I agree with this. But the laws do change. It is a constant process.
And genocides are wrong because? </ Jon Stewart Voice>
Because I said so.
Which in deeds equals, well, nothing.
Which is the base of the legality of your country.
I was under the impression the basis of modern international law was the law of the sea, the nineteenth century hunt against pirates and the maritime slave-trade and all that
Well, yes and no. It has evolved. Especially trough Nuremberg. Although plundering is still going on...
Lucky are those who have nations-states (or sometimes, benevolent foreign states eager to help) to protect them because international law can't, and so it won't.
Yup, And thus, some use this to deprive others of the same privileges.
International law is the only framwork on which we can build real coexistence, It's full of flaws (like any set of laws), but without it genocides are bound to be repeated. It's learning from history. It could go either way ofcourse. If international law (and the UN) doesn't evolve, then we are back to the thirties. god luck!
and, once more, why are geoncides wrong?