3 ms·
Because international waters are international waters. Do you want China to start cruising around the world and arbitrarily enforcing their laws on other citiz
by bequanna 3y ago
Because international waters are international waters.
Do you want China to start cruising around the world and arbitrarily enforcing their laws on other citizens?
- hedora 3y agoWhat if they enforced UN law?
- bequanna 3y agoOne country using the threat of violence to stop non-violent (but still bad) acts by citizens of another country in neutral territory seems like a bad idea.
- bequanna 3y ago> It's not non-violent if it's causing harm. Oh man… that’s a slippery slope. Allows you to justify using force against all sorts of non-violent things you don’t like. See the many examples where aggressive force was used “for the greater good” in the 20th century if you want some spoilers for how that turns out.
- rexpop 3y agoIt's not non-violent if it's causing harm.
- sshine 3y agoShooting a ship with a gunboat is still more violent than tossing a used fishing net.
- rexpop 3y agoTossing a million such nets is a more fair comparison.
- sshine 3y agoThe catastrophe of tossing plastics into the ocean is arguably worse than the combined sinking of ships with cannons. But to call it violent because of the cumulative pain it indirectly causes is still a different, more abstract concept of pain than direct infliction. I’m not opposed to acknowledging either as pain, or to say that either is the worst, but they’re different.
- fennecfoxy 3y agoThis is basically all of human history, laws and being imprisoned - holding someone against their will counting as a more modern, refined form of violence, though necessary. But for that specific scenario, yes it is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. But only because we're just a bunch of animals on a rock and we just can't seem to agree to play nice with each other. I blame evolution.
- PeterisP 3y agoWell there's no such thing as UN law. There is nothing above the sovereign nations and they are only bound by their treaties, bilateral and multilateral - despite having a name like "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", this is not some law which UN could pass or modify, it's a treaty which is binding only on those who sign it, and any modifications to add extra restrictions it will be binding only to those ships whose countries agree to these restrictions. UN (and any other international organization) is subservient to the sovereign countries or a place of discussion, not some "world government" above them.
- Kretinsky 3y agoSo international waters are lawless? How about exploding test atomic bombs there, is that allowed too?
- 93po 3y agoIf you could then I doubt anyone would try to stop you
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoIf you stop and think for a minute this is obviously wrong. We have fishing quotas, ban on testing nuclear weapons, etc.
- mikrotikker 3y agoYea but Japan still goes into the southern marine whale reserve waters and kills 1000 odd whale every year
- 93po 3y agoNorth Korea does nuclear tests all the time. If they did it in the middle of international waters, do you think that would result in military action against them? I highly doubt it
- ben_w 3y agoI think there would be military action, at least if it was clear they'd done it and there wasn't plausible deniability that it was one of the ones that went missing during the Cold War.