4 ms·

my understanding is that international laws are set so that humans do have rights due to their conditions of being human, based on the assumption that there are

my understanding is that international laws are set so that humans do have rights due to their conditions of being human, based on the assumption that there are things that you cannot do, regardless of the culture you live in. It aims at invalidating the idea that I can only articulate as "that is how things work in this country". For instance, you cannot annihilate groups of people based on religion, that is a crime, internationally, even if your country allows it. That said, and again, these are individual rights. You can't condemn Rwanda for the crimes committed by their leaders: these leaders are put on trial. It occurs to me that the US has sanctioned Iran and other countries (not an expert) in the past/present (again, not an expert). But that isn't international law: those are unilateral decisions made by the US government. I can see both things occurring, but not intertwined. Could you please expand on what you understand by "people do have rights"?

dragonwriter 7y ago
> That said, and again, these are individual rights. You can't condemn Rwanda for the crimes committed by their leaders: these leaders are put on trial. Personal international law is basically a post-WWII invention,and having regularized international methods of enforcing such law started with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court quite recently. International law operating at the level of nations has existed longer, and while ad hoc national acts are still the dominant method of compelling compliance, has had a permanent international venue for resolving cases much longer than international law addressing individual responsibility. So, yes, as well as (and longer than) we’ve been able to hold individuals accountable for violations of international law, we can also hold whole nations responsible.
- ohduran 7y ago
  Thanks for clarifying on this!

dragonwriter 7y ago

> That said, and again, these are individual rights. You can't condemn Rwanda for the crimes committed by their leaders: these leaders are put on trial. Personal international law is basically a post-WWII invention,and having regularized international methods of enforcing such law started with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court quite recently. International law operating at the level of nations has existed longer, and while ad hoc national acts are still the dominant method of compelling compliance, has had a permanent international venue for resolving cases much longer than international law addressing individual responsibility. So, yes, as well as (and longer than) we’ve been able to hold individuals accountable for violations of international law, we can also hold whole nations responsible.

ohduran 7y ago
Thanks for clarifying on this!