3 ms·

Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid r

Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free. They would not just go and start a war. This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country. Say you get married in a state that allows LGBT couples, and then move to one that doesn't, AFAIK your marriage is still valid and recognized. Maybe in some countries it isn't (ex. various Middle-eastern ones) but generally it is. If there was an international body that could allow you those rights and freedoms then could help use legal means to protect them. Protection doesn't only mean physical force, especially not in this age. I'm not saying I don't agree with you in some way though. There would be very little/nothing an ephemeral government could do against physical aggression, which is what I meant by my earlier statement, "I can't think of a better solution to that yet, and there may not be one."

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free. "International legal means" -- especially in those scenarios -- is just a thin layer of formalities wrapped around the threat that your country, perhaps with assistance from its allies, will impose consequences like trade sanctions, and, if necessary, ultimately wage war if their requests are not adhered to. Sure, they could ultimately do nation-vs-nation legal action in the ICJ, but even if your nation wins, its not like the ICJ has marshals it can send in to enforce its orders. Enforcement is basically self-service. > They would not just go and start a war. No, but they would be threatening one, if only implicitly. > This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country. Lots of them, I would bet, are, they just choose not to travel to the countries they are afraid of being jailed in.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free. "International legal means" -- especially in those scenarios -- is just a thin layer of formalities wrapped around the threat that your country, perhaps with assistance from its allies, will impose consequences like trade sanctions, and, if necessary, ultimately wage war if their requests are not adhered to. Sure, they could ultimately do nation-vs-nation legal action in the ICJ, but even if your nation wins, its not like the ICJ has marshals it can send in to enforce its orders. Enforcement is basically self-service. > They would not just go and start a war. No, but they would be threatening one, if only implicitly. > This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country. Lots of them, I would bet, are, they just choose not to travel to the countries they are afraid of being jailed in.