4 ms·

The multimedia article shared by stefap2 is a good one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078612 What's con

The multimedia article shared by stefap2 is a good one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078612 What's concerning about this is on the end of the slide, there is a text which says: "The Tribunal in the Hague ruled on Tuesday, July 12, that China's claim was illegal. But it has no power to enforce the decision." Some questions: 1. If that's the case, then what good would the Hague ruling be if it is not going to be enforced? 2. Who should be enforcing the said ruling in this case?

snowwrestler 10y ago
No one enforces international law except the individual nations themselves. This is different from a national or (in the U.S.) state government, which is typically embued with police and military powers to enforce the national laws. The state of Virginia has state police and a state court system that will arrest and put people into state prison if they violate a state law. The U.S. has federal police and a federal court system that will put people into federal prison for breaking federal law. The U.N. does not have a global police or military force. It can be thought of more as a venue for developing a shared understanding of the world, than a government that creates and enforces its own laws. In this case, this ruling essentially says that most of the world does not agree with China about its territorial claims. This will lend moral authority to the actions of other nations like the Philippines, U.S., Australia, Japan, when they transit and operate in the South China Sea.
- nullnilvoid 10y ago
  Most of the world or the few countries which have outsized influences on Hague? The US (Philippines' close ally) and the EU basically control Hague.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Well that's a good point. It's the difference between the ideal of the UN, vs. the reality of the UN. It's supposed to a fair global venue, but because it lacks any self-sufficient authority, it's dominated by the most powerful nations. That said, China is one of those most powerful nations, so I'd argue that this ruling still has significance. Maybe someday there will be an actual global government, but right now I don't think that anyone believes we (i.e. human beings) know how to create a well-functioning government that large. The EU suffers from many of the same problems of the UN, like crazy bureaucracy and dominance by the largest/richest member nations. The U.S. federal government was carefully designed to balance small states and big states, and seems to do a good job of that--but maybe not a lot of other things. And big U.S. states still dominate other areas of national governance, like environmental regs by California, or school textbook standards by Texas.

snowwrestler 10y ago

No one enforces international law except the individual nations themselves. This is different from a national or (in the U.S.) state government, which is typically embued with police and military powers to enforce the national laws. The state of Virginia has state police and a state court system that will arrest and put people into state prison if they violate a state law. The U.S. has federal police and a federal court system that will put people into federal prison for breaking federal law. The U.N. does not have a global police or military force. It can be thought of more as a venue for developing a shared understanding of the world, than a government that creates and enforces its own laws. In this case, this ruling essentially says that most of the world does not agree with China about its territorial claims. This will lend moral authority to the actions of other nations like the Philippines, U.S., Australia, Japan, when they transit and operate in the South China Sea.

nullnilvoid 10y ago
Most of the world or the few countries which have outsized influences on Hague? The US (Philippines' close ally) and the EU basically control Hague.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Well that's a good point. It's the difference between the ideal of the UN, vs. the reality of the UN. It's supposed to a fair global venue, but because it lacks any self-sufficient authority, it's dominated by the most powerful nations. That said, China is one of those most powerful nations, so I'd argue that this ruling still has significance. Maybe someday there will be an actual global government, but right now I don't think that anyone believes we (i.e. human beings) know how to create a well-functioning government that large. The EU suffers from many of the same problems of the UN, like crazy bureaucracy and dominance by the largest/richest member nations. The U.S. federal government was carefully designed to balance small states and big states, and seems to do a good job of that--but maybe not a lot of other things. And big U.S. states still dominate other areas of national governance, like environmental regs by California, or school textbook standards by Texas.