8 ms·

>Says international law, including the United Nations charter (reciting the Westphalian doctrine), which every member state abides by. And who enforces this la

>Says international law, including the United Nations charter (reciting the Westphalian doctrine), which every member state abides by. And who enforces this law?

wahern 6y ago
Not who, but what--self-interest, the natural human predisposition to obey cultural norms, biologically innate concept of "fairness", etc. A cultural norm is also a mechanism for streamlining cooperation--whenever some person or entity breaks established norms, you don't need to convene and deliberate to decide whether it was wrong, it's just per se wrong and members can instantaneously begin acting accordingly. It keeps everybody aligned. Not perfectly, but to a much greater degree than when the particular invisible boundaries don't exist. And that's one reason why it's in everybody's self-interest to substantially promote obeyance to such norms, and avoid harming the norm. Some norms are more important than others. In the context of international relations, sovereignty is perhaps still the most important one. Unless you're prepared to conquer the entire world, anything you do that harms the principle harms yourself as other nation-states are less likely to respect your own sovereignty. Balancing these interests (e.g. short-term gain vs long-term harm) is complex, but as I said upholding the principle of sovereignty is one of the most sacrosanct. And so when it's violated it's quite understandable why even super powers like the U.S. and China remain circumspect, invariably resorting to plausible deniability or pretense justifications that at least nominally avoid openly flouting the principle.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  You're spinning in circles. 'self-interest, the natural human predisposition to obey cultural norms' are abstract ideas, not international enforcement bodies. >And that's why it's in everybody's self-interest to substantially promote obeyance to such norms, and avoid harming the norm. Oh yeah? If that's the case, why does a thing like 'tragedy of commons' exist? Is it because without a central authority to enforce order, the rational action to take by each actor is to cheat and to take as much for themselves because if they don't, someone else will? But don't believe me, look at all of history. Peace only existed when an empire was able to enforce it. Circling back to Iran. Iran has their sovereignty, they just are pariah state because they chose a policy of antagonism against a super-power - that policy hasn't worked out for them at all.
  - wahern 6y ago
    If "might makes right" was the only viable dynamic, the human species wouldn't exist. It's one very important dynamic, but hardly the only one, and not the principle dynamic upon which human civilizations are built. It's why North Korea is still a sh*t hole, while China increasingly relies on nationalism and other social mechanisms to manage its society. Force or even the threat of force doesn't scale very well. History is important but not determinative. The emergence of the Westphalian doctrine was a novel civilizational development; novel in how deeply and quickly it spread. It's sort of like the concepts of monotheism or "human rights"--decentralized, self-perpetuating, viral organizing principles which can't easily be put back in the box once they achieve critical mass. EDIT: To be clear, the problem with a nation-state like the U.S. flouting national sovereignty is that the "United States" is a construct predicated on the international sovereign order. Undermining that international order undermines the very identity of the country, an identity undergirding the legitimacy of its institutions and the willingness of its people to promote them, not to mention the legitimacy of its external relationships. So even though there are counter-forces--often very powerful counter-forces--the forces for maintaining the logic of the nation-state order are exceptionally powerful and at work at all levels. Mechanisms like plausible deniability (where plausible implies something that can be tolerably overlooked) are like pressure relief valves for contradictions that threaten the normative order. Someday the nation-state order may collapse, overwhelmed by stronger organizing dynamics, hopefully establishing a better civilizational equilibrium, but so what? The point is understanding the reasons for how and why countries act in the particular, peculiar ways that they currently do.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Force and the threat of force scales incredibly well. The question is just how refined your mechanism for applying it is. Economically, the United States is the most effective country. It got to where it is through a genocide, and it enforces the rules of its economy by threatening force all the way to deadly force in every single commercial interaction, in the interactions of property, and even in the data you're allowed to read and share. Property is the basis of American society and the basis of property is force. The international order is a farce. It's main enforcer, the United States, is not a signatory to half of what it purports to enforce, and violates international law whenever it is convenient. The nation state order is different from the international order, and is based on the coalescing of national power into an entity with the monopoly of violence. At every single level, the current order is based on force. It exists because the mighty wanted it to exist and because it is an efficient way to organize power, not because it's right or even because it's an useful set of rules to apply to every situation. Really, it's mostly a tool to spin narratives and make the use of force more efficient.
TheBill 6y ago
Enoon. Take a look at China's activity in SEA.
AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
People get annoyed that "international law" isn't really a think and is more like "international suggestions."
sudosysgen 6y ago
They used the word "supposed", not "can't". There are better arguments for what you're trying to convey.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  I'm not sure where 'supposed' comes from. OP is arguing that the way the world works in their mind, is how it is 'supposed' to work in real life.

>Says international law, including the United Nations charter (reciting the Westphalian doctrine), which every member state abides by. And who enforces this law?

wahern 6y ago

Not who, but what--self-interest, the natural human predisposition to obey cultural norms, biologically innate concept of "fairness", etc. A cultural norm is also a mechanism for streamlining cooperation--whenever some person or entity breaks established norms, you don't need to convene and deliberate to decide whether it was wrong, it's just per se wrong and members can instantaneously begin acting accordingly. It keeps everybody aligned. Not perfectly, but to a much greater degree than when the particular invisible boundaries don't exist. And that's one reason why it's in everybody's self-interest to substantially promote obeyance to such norms, and avoid harming the norm. Some norms are more important than others. In the context of international relations, sovereignty is perhaps still the most important one. Unless you're prepared to conquer the entire world, anything you do that harms the principle harms yourself as other nation-states are less likely to respect your own sovereignty. Balancing these interests (e.g. short-term gain vs long-term harm) is complex, but as I said upholding the principle of sovereignty is one of the most sacrosanct. And so when it's violated it's quite understandable why even super powers like the U.S. and China remain circumspect, invariably resorting to plausible deniability or pretense justifications that at least nominally avoid openly flouting the principle.

macspoofing 6y ago
You're spinning in circles. 'self-interest, the natural human predisposition to obey cultural norms' are abstract ideas, not international enforcement bodies. >And that's why it's in everybody's self-interest to substantially promote obeyance to such norms, and avoid harming the norm. Oh yeah? If that's the case, why does a thing like 'tragedy of commons' exist? Is it because without a central authority to enforce order, the rational action to take by each actor is to cheat and to take as much for themselves because if they don't, someone else will? But don't believe me, look at all of history. Peace only existed when an empire was able to enforce it. Circling back to Iran. Iran has their sovereignty, they just are pariah state because they chose a policy of antagonism against a super-power - that policy hasn't worked out for them at all.
- wahern 6y ago
  If "might makes right" was the only viable dynamic, the human species wouldn't exist. It's one very important dynamic, but hardly the only one, and not the principle dynamic upon which human civilizations are built. It's why North Korea is still a sh*t hole, while China increasingly relies on nationalism and other social mechanisms to manage its society. Force or even the threat of force doesn't scale very well. History is important but not determinative. The emergence of the Westphalian doctrine was a novel civilizational development; novel in how deeply and quickly it spread. It's sort of like the concepts of monotheism or "human rights"--decentralized, self-perpetuating, viral organizing principles which can't easily be put back in the box once they achieve critical mass. EDIT: To be clear, the problem with a nation-state like the U.S. flouting national sovereignty is that the "United States" is a construct predicated on the international sovereign order. Undermining that international order undermines the very identity of the country, an identity undergirding the legitimacy of its institutions and the willingness of its people to promote them, not to mention the legitimacy of its external relationships. So even though there are counter-forces--often very powerful counter-forces--the forces for maintaining the logic of the nation-state order are exceptionally powerful and at work at all levels. Mechanisms like plausible deniability (where plausible implies something that can be tolerably overlooked) are like pressure relief valves for contradictions that threaten the normative order. Someday the nation-state order may collapse, overwhelmed by stronger organizing dynamics, hopefully establishing a better civilizational equilibrium, but so what? The point is understanding the reasons for how and why countries act in the particular, peculiar ways that they currently do.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Force and the threat of force scales incredibly well. The question is just how refined your mechanism for applying it is. Economically, the United States is the most effective country. It got to where it is through a genocide, and it enforces the rules of its economy by threatening force all the way to deadly force in every single commercial interaction, in the interactions of property, and even in the data you're allowed to read and share. Property is the basis of American society and the basis of property is force. The international order is a farce. It's main enforcer, the United States, is not a signatory to half of what it purports to enforce, and violates international law whenever it is convenient. The nation state order is different from the international order, and is based on the coalescing of national power into an entity with the monopoly of violence. At every single level, the current order is based on force. It exists because the mighty wanted it to exist and because it is an efficient way to organize power, not because it's right or even because it's an useful set of rules to apply to every situation. Really, it's mostly a tool to spin narratives and make the use of force more efficient.

TheBill 6y ago

Enoon. Take a look at China's activity in SEA.

AdamJacobMuller 6y ago

People get annoyed that "international law" isn't really a think and is more like "international suggestions."

sudosysgen 6y ago

They used the word "supposed", not "can't". There are better arguments for what you're trying to convey.

macspoofing 6y ago
I'm not sure where 'supposed' comes from. OP is arguing that the way the world works in their mind, is how it is 'supposed' to work in real life.