6 ms·
International law operates in terms of reciprocal agreements and treaties between sovereign states. If a sovereign state agrees to be part of some international
by slibhb 6y ago
International law operates in terms of reciprocal agreements and treaties between sovereign states. If a sovereign state agrees to be part of some international tribunal or treaty, it reserves the right to leave or to selectively comply. This is exactly what we see in practice. We do not consider this to be a crime because a state has the right to withdraw from a treaty. Compare this to the government of a state, which does not have the right to violate its own law.
This situation implies that there is no authority above and beyond the sovereign state on which true international law could be based. This is a good thing. True international law requires a world government which would be an unbearable restriction of freedom. Where could Edward Snowden run if there was a world government? How about Chinese and Russian dissidents, past and present, who have escaped to the West?
Attempts, however noble, to solve problems by enacting some international law will fail, just as they have in the past. For the foreseeable future, we're stuck with the sovereign state. If the EU cares about the environment, it can pay developing countries not to clear forests. Or it could offer to install renewables for free. The only other option involves war and the idea of the EU invading Brazil is comical.
- brendoelfrendo 6y agoOk, but what's the alternative? How long until Brazil's neighbors, feeling the impact of increasing desertification from the clear cutting of the Amazon in the name of beef production, declare war to stop it? And at that point, is it already too late?
- xbar 6y agoYou ask two interesting questions. One: Is the only alternative war? No. Sanctions work. Two: Is it already too late (assumes some tipping point and some amount of waiting)? Sanctions take a while; if a tipping point exists (defer to science), then maybe yes. If no tipping point exists, then no (in the absolute as your question implies) but maybe yes in a localized harm sort of way. War is can address the problem of permanent environmental destruction. It has human costs and is certainly not environmentally neutral. Wouldn't it be nice if there was any other solution?
- matheusmoreira 6y agoYou're kidding, right? South American countries have much bigger problems to deal with than the Amazon. Nobody is gonna go to war over this. I'm not even sure there's enough strategic value in the Amazon to justify dying over it.
- brendoelfrendo 6y agoPeople realize that without the Amazon there, Brazil becomes a desert, right? The rain doesn't just happen. The rainforest causes the rain. So then Brazil and her neighbors get to enjoy drought, crop failures, and famine, all because Brazil was more focused on cattle ranching than managing a vital ecological resource.
- ben_w 6y ago> People realize that without the Amazon there, Brazil becomes a desert, right Probably not. People have a really hard time when cause and effect have a big time gap, and separately are really bad with big numbers — people, areas, money, everything. Also, while I have heard that rainforests causes rain, it is a surprising thing to hear.
- matheusmoreira 6y agoYes, we all get taught the rain cycle at school. Of course it should be protected. Are you literally willing to go to war and fight and die over it though? Seriously.
- teachingassist 6y ago> Compare this to the government of a state, which does not have the right to violate its own law. States [of the USA] selectively comply with federal law all the time - an obvious example is Colorado legalising marijuana. You seem to think it's reasonable that there is some oversight body for federal law, so why not an oversight body for international law? Why would you consider it 'good' that there's no consequence for Brazil, up to the point of all-out war?
- slibhb 6y ago> You seem to think it's reasonable that there is some oversight body for federal law, so why not an oversight body for international law? Because such a body would require a world government, no such government exists, and its existence would be a bad thing.
- leetcrew 6y ago> States [of the USA] selectively comply with federal law all the time - an obvious example is Colorado legalising marijuana. states can play this game in limited circumstances where the federal government makes only a half-hearted effort at enforcement. if the national opinion were more united against recreational marijuana, there are plenty of ways the federal government could force colorado to comply (eg, withholding highway funds).
- rtkwe 6y agoOr just raiding every grower and dispensary in the state constantly. Recreational and medical marijuana exist entirely because the federal government has decided to not enforce the law on it and allow states to set up regulations on it.
- dahfizz 6y agoThis is how federalism works. The federal government could step in and force all states to do something, but in many cases allows the states to self-govern.
- 6y ago
- tw04 6y ago>This is a good thing. It's a good thing as it stands today, it is not a good thing for the future of humanity IMO because just one bad actor can ruin it for everyone. I'm not sure how we get from here to ideal situation - my guess would be it cannot happen until we start populating the stars, because there will continue to be resource contention until that point. And/or the internal drive most humans have to want/need more disappears (which seems unlikely).
- slibhb 6y ago> It's a good thing as it stands today, it is not a good thing for the future of humanity IMO because just one bad action can ruin it for everyone. Leaving aside the sheer arrogance of thinking you can say with confidence what's going to "ruin the world for everyone," it's very clear to me that any world government that could make judgements like this for everyone would be by definition a tyranny. Governments do bad things, sometimes backed by popular opinion. You assume a world government would be concerned with global warming or humanitarian issues and would not make bad choices. Why do you assume that? What would stop a world government from committing actual genocide? If it was truly a world government, nothing could stop it. Hannah Arendt: > The crimes against human rights, which have become a specialty of totalitarian regimes, can always be justified by the pretext that right is equivalent to being good or useful for the whole in distinction to its parts. A conception of law which identifies what is right with the notion of what is good for—for the individual, or the family, or the people, or the largest number—becomes inevitable once the absolute and transcendent measurements of religion or the law of nature have lost their authority. And this predicament is by no means solved if the unit to which the "good for" applies is as large as mankind itself. For it is quite conceivable, and even within the realm of practical political possibilities, that one fine day a highly organized and mechanized humanity will conclude quite democratically—namely by majority decision—that for humanity as a whole it would be better to liquidate certain parts thereof.
- tw04 6y ago>Leaving aside the sheer arrogance of thinking you can say with confidence what's going to "ruin the world for everyone," I'm not sure how easily observable facts fall into the category of "sheer arrogance", also not entirely sure why you're personally attacking me. It's uncalled for and adds nothing to the discussion. Global warming is an easily observable fact, it's happening, it will ruin the world for everyone. >Governments do bad things, sometimes backed by popular opinion. You assume a world government be concerned with global warming or humanitarian issues and would not make bad choices. Why do you assume that? What would stop a world government from committing actual genocide? If it was truly a world government, nothing could stop it. So you missed the point entirely because you had decided I personally think I know what's best for the planet. I literally stated "I'm not sure how we get from here to ideal situation" Ideal situation would quite obviously be a state in which there is no genocide. People are not unjustly killed, imprisoned, etc. Maybe chill with the assumptions of bad intentions.
- s_dev 6y ago>This is a good thing. True international law requires a world government which would be an unbearable restriction of freedom. The UN is a proto World Government. Einstein, Churchill, Gandhi etc. said was needed in the Nuclear age. The League of Nations was largely useless in preventing WWII. What ultimatley emerged is the UN Security Council which starts to aspire to what you're talking about -- it's not a pipe dream nor a tyranical organisation that restricts freedom.
- slibhb 6y agoOf course the UN is a proto world government. And the history of the UN is a history of impotence. The UN couldn't stop a genocide in Rwanda committed with fucking machetes. Is the UN a good thing? It's good that states talk to each other. But as a government, as a law-making and law-keeping entity, the UN is a joke.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tengbretson 6y agoWhy would anyone care what Einstein had to say about governance?
- gonational 6y agoEspecially now that we know Einstein was responsible for the discovery of basically nothing. Not only did he stand on the shoulders of giants, but he essentially lifted much of his special theory of relativity from the thoughts and musings of Ernst Mach, amongst other earlier actual geniuses. Once you learn to appreciate these facts, the lore of Einstein fades, and Einstein becomes something the charlatan who traveled from here to there talking with important people, and playing science politics. Pertaining the "atom bomb", Oppenheimer was instrumental in managing the Manhattan project... Einstein was sent a letter that described, at a high-level, what was going to be worked on, asking whether it seemed legit; he replied, essentially saying, "yeah that should work". Einstein's only contribution to science was the photoelectric effect, which also leaned on the prior efforts of Alexandre Becquerel, et al.
- Quanttek 6y agoYour comment is in the surface a rebuttal of the proposal but it really does not address international criminal law (ICL). ICL is also the result of a treaty between sovereign States that agree to criminalize certain behaviors by individuals and, in the case of the International Criminal Court, agree than an international tribunal will prosecute those crimes when national authorities were unable or unwilling to do so. This complementarity aspect has led to the widespread national criminalization of international crimes and thousands of prosecutions against war criminals or perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Arguably, it has shown effective. But ICL goes beyond the Rome Statute and includes e.g. treaties on terrorism or piracy that include "prosecute or extradite" clauses.
- slibhb 6y agoICL may be a normative good (like "human rights"). But it isn't really law. There's no significant force behind it and participation is voluntary. Compare that to the law of a sovereign state.
- Daho0n 6y agoYes participation is voluntary but refusing to participate does show the true face of the state. Only really bad actors refuse to work together for the greater good. Even some normally seen as bad actors do participate so it is truly telling when a country refuse. Not that it makes much difference but one can hope sanctions will be agreed upon against those who refuse - or more political correct: bonuses for those that participate.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago> The only other option involves war and the idea of the EU invading Brazil is comical. What the hell is going on? Why would Europe even want to invade my country?
- musingsole 6y agoEuropean/American environmental activists get a bit frothy when they hear of damage to rainforests. Nevermind that most of these people have never been to one and don't investigate reports more thoroughly than reading a headline on Facebook from half a world away. I believe GP was imagining these types gaining control and trying to force the world to comply instead of actually helping the world to care about protecting the environment.
- bpodgursky 6y agoI don't think most people appreciate that in a true proportional world government where the only fair way to allocate power is by population, how truly vastly outweighed the West, with all their ideals of sexual liberty, speech, and religion, would be by the developing and/or more conservative parts of the world.
- ectopod 6y agoYou don't need to use international law to create an international crime. For example, many countries have laws against the sexual exploitation of children that apply internationally. If the French government, say, wants to punish French executives who damage the environment anywhere in the world they can do this. The situation is a little more complicated with the EU (they make rules which get implemented in national law) but the effect is much the same.