4 ms·
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. Obviously the Russians do not recognize any law that would prevent them from invading Ukraine. If they
by asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. Obviously the Russians do not recognize any law that would prevent them from invading Ukraine. If they did, they would not be invading Ukraine. The invasion is illegal whether or not they recognize the laws that render it illegal.
With respect to the UN charter, it's enforceable in the sense that any international regulation is: if you care enough you can get your guns and shoot the other guy if he doesn't follow the regulation. But otherwise, no.
- barbazoo 5y agoI'm not drawing anything here. I'm just genuinely curious how international relations work in a case like this where one guys just invades other countries. The reaction I'm getting here is weird, as if my asking that question somehow makes me sympathize with that guy? Not at all, I just need to know how our world works so I understand what's going in. The comment I was responding to was claiming they were breaking international law and my hope was that there is an avenue to enforce that in the long term.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoGuns are the only mechanism to enforce laws affecting sovereigns. Actually, to a first approximation, force and power underlie all laws, not just international ones. Ultima ratio regum. The final authority is physical or economic compulsion.
- DocTomoe 5y ago> I'm just genuinely curious how international relations work in a case like this where one guys just invades other countries. The lawyers answer is relevant here: It depends. Is the illegal attacker the US or a major NATO partner? Nothing much happens. Is it an attack between third-world-countries? Noone really cares. Is the attacker a major opponent of "the West"? Well, we're seeing this play out right now.