5 ms·

The "World's Policeman" thesis really fell flat. There is an urgent need to have effective international law-enforcement and justice.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> There is an urgent need to have effective international law-enforcement and justice. What makes you think any other organization given such privilege would do any better with it than the US? Even if they started out with good intentions, that kind of power will inevitably corrupt them. Embrace multipolarity. Benevolent, wise and just unipolarity will never happen.
- pphysch 3y ago
  International doesn't mean unipolar. Effective international institutions are multilateral in nature.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    If you have in mind the kind of international courts that already exist, e.g. the ICC,... well they already exist. I took your emphasis on "effective" to imply that you would like international courts to have substantially more power than presently exists. With enough power to truly be effective, that court would become the unipolar power. It would attract the power hungry like moths to a lightbulb.
    - pphysch 3y ago
      Washington threatened the ICC with serious consequences if it carried out its mandate. Powerful also does not mean unipolar/dominant. Checks and balances can exist. That's how the US government was initially designed.
infamouscow 3y ago
Urgent to whom? We live in a multipolar world now. Countries already use criminals as political tools to advance their goals on the world stage. What makes you think expanding these efforts will somehow change existing geopolitical behavior? All systems of law break down into the imposers, and the imposed upon. You don't have to impose anything on the voluntarily compliant, but what about those that refuse? Are you going to invade or kill innocent people just because a few leaders don't want to play by your rules? Sanctions don't work for their intended political purpose. The only reason politicians talk about them is because it enables their corporate masters to swoop into markets and make a lot of money. (And if you disagree, I ask you find a study pointing to how sanctions were politically successful.)
- pphysch 3y ago
  > Urgent to whom? We live in a multipolar world now. What does that have to do with it? We should expect more of international institutions in a multipolar world. It's urgent to anyone that has had to deal with ransomware gangs. It's urgent for countries suffering from violent cartels. It's urgent for Canada, which just accused India of assassinating one of its citizens on Canadian soil. And so on.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    > What does that have to do with it? We should expect more of international institutions in a multipolar world. The whole reason why the world went from unipolar to multipolar is because the existing international organizations failed. What you're missing is these international organizations are political instruments used to obstruct and hinder Russia and China's development. The people in those countries don't share your supposition that more international organizations are a good thing. > It's urgent to anyone that has had to deal with ransomware gangs. What makes you think an international organization can do anything about ransomware? It's existed in this form for over a decade and nobody has done anything about it. > It's urgent for countries suffering from violent cartels. Why hasn't some international organization been formed to handled this then? Multipolarity is a very recent. > It's urgent for Canada, which just accused India of assassinating one of its citizens on Canadian soil. Do you think Canada is going to war with India over this?

mcpackieh 3y ago

> There is an urgent need to have effective international law-enforcement and justice. What makes you think any other organization given such privilege would do any better with it than the US? Even if they started out with good intentions, that kind of power will inevitably corrupt them. Embrace multipolarity. Benevolent, wise and just unipolarity will never happen.

pphysch 3y ago
International doesn't mean unipolar. Effective international institutions are multilateral in nature.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  If you have in mind the kind of international courts that already exist, e.g. the ICC,... well they already exist. I took your emphasis on "effective" to imply that you would like international courts to have substantially more power than presently exists. With enough power to truly be effective, that court would become the unipolar power. It would attract the power hungry like moths to a lightbulb.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    Washington threatened the ICC with serious consequences if it carried out its mandate. Powerful also does not mean unipolar/dominant. Checks and balances can exist. That's how the US government was initially designed.

infamouscow 3y ago

Urgent to whom? We live in a multipolar world now. Countries already use criminals as political tools to advance their goals on the world stage. What makes you think expanding these efforts will somehow change existing geopolitical behavior? All systems of law break down into the imposers, and the imposed upon. You don't have to impose anything on the voluntarily compliant, but what about those that refuse? Are you going to invade or kill innocent people just because a few leaders don't want to play by your rules? Sanctions don't work for their intended political purpose. The only reason politicians talk about them is because it enables their corporate masters to swoop into markets and make a lot of money. (And if you disagree, I ask you find a study pointing to how sanctions were politically successful.)

pphysch 3y ago
> Urgent to whom? We live in a multipolar world now. What does that have to do with it? We should expect more of international institutions in a multipolar world. It's urgent to anyone that has had to deal with ransomware gangs. It's urgent for countries suffering from violent cartels. It's urgent for Canada, which just accused India of assassinating one of its citizens on Canadian soil. And so on.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  > What does that have to do with it? We should expect more of international institutions in a multipolar world. The whole reason why the world went from unipolar to multipolar is because the existing international organizations failed. What you're missing is these international organizations are political instruments used to obstruct and hinder Russia and China's development. The people in those countries don't share your supposition that more international organizations are a good thing. > It's urgent to anyone that has had to deal with ransomware gangs. What makes you think an international organization can do anything about ransomware? It's existed in this form for over a decade and nobody has done anything about it. > It's urgent for countries suffering from violent cartels. Why hasn't some international organization been formed to handled this then? Multipolarity is a very recent. > It's urgent for Canada, which just accused India of assassinating one of its citizens on Canadian soil. Do you think Canada is going to war with India over this?