4 ms·

Modern states are basically just feudal states with their private extensions, particularly on the international level and over the last 3 decades they chose ove

Modern states are basically just feudal states with their private extensions, particularly on the international level and over the last 3 decades they chose over and over to let analogies hold from meat space because it maintains or expands their power relative to other elements of society. The Red cross should not look for specific legislation so that any states that are foolish enough can argue their own assumed rights away and will have to take that risk if they want to take back the right the Red cross is taking by the same analogy.

dmvdoug 3y ago
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying in that second paragraph. Can you expand a little bit? There is no “legislation” involved here at all. These are treaties. If there’s no treaty agreement, there’s no right period (setting aside customary international humanitarian law, which I think is obviously safe to do here, because, like, none of the elements required for something to be recognized as customary are present here).
- potatopatch 3y ago
  A new convention functions as international legislation as far as I am concerned. The US for example did not ratify the newer convention on statelessness. Take that scenerio with the Red Cross and a new convention to treat government sponsored criminals as not allowed to attack the Red Cross. It is far less risky to act like they already have that protection and every state should punish a State that violates their existing promises under existing convention than to navigate the situation where a superpower does not ratify the new convention and claims retaliations and shaming are technically violations of their sovereignty. For a state in the current situation to deny such analogies seems paradoxical to me.. The Internet was not the wild west it was supposed to be for everyone when it comes to their own advantage, but still as dangerous as the wild west due in large part to criminals that are connected to sovereign States and largely shielded using rights to war logic.
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    Oh, I see now. I mean, I don’t disagree that the most aggressive way for the ICRC to handle it would be to claim it as some kind of emerging customary norm rather than trying to whet appetites for a new AP to address it. You can never be sure what the results of treaty negotiations will be. Failure to ratify an AP would be positive evidence that there is no such norm. So why risk it? The problem is that it’s wildly implausible that there is such an emerging customary norm. And there really is no way to claim with a straight face that this sort of thing falls under the terms of the GCs. And the problem with making aggressive claims about customary norms is that IHL really only does work if people agree to make it work. The worst thing that could happen is to have countries not even pay IHL lip service. But this all gets to the really, really hard but fundamental question of international law: enforcement. I was piqued by you originally using the term “legislation” just because the way we think about legislation, there is usually an executive to enforce it. That’s part of what makes it “law.” But there is no such thing in international law, and given how overwhelmingly powerful states continue to be, there won’t be in my lifetime. I love the idea of international law, but this is what makes it so slippery and difficult and frustrating.

dmvdoug 3y ago

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying in that second paragraph. Can you expand a little bit? There is no “legislation” involved here at all. These are treaties. If there’s no treaty agreement, there’s no right period (setting aside customary international humanitarian law, which I think is obviously safe to do here, because, like, none of the elements required for something to be recognized as customary are present here).

potatopatch 3y ago
A new convention functions as international legislation as far as I am concerned. The US for example did not ratify the newer convention on statelessness. Take that scenerio with the Red Cross and a new convention to treat government sponsored criminals as not allowed to attack the Red Cross. It is far less risky to act like they already have that protection and every state should punish a State that violates their existing promises under existing convention than to navigate the situation where a superpower does not ratify the new convention and claims retaliations and shaming are technically violations of their sovereignty. For a state in the current situation to deny such analogies seems paradoxical to me.. The Internet was not the wild west it was supposed to be for everyone when it comes to their own advantage, but still as dangerous as the wild west due in large part to criminals that are connected to sovereign States and largely shielded using rights to war logic.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  Oh, I see now. I mean, I don’t disagree that the most aggressive way for the ICRC to handle it would be to claim it as some kind of emerging customary norm rather than trying to whet appetites for a new AP to address it. You can never be sure what the results of treaty negotiations will be. Failure to ratify an AP would be positive evidence that there is no such norm. So why risk it? The problem is that it’s wildly implausible that there is such an emerging customary norm. And there really is no way to claim with a straight face that this sort of thing falls under the terms of the GCs. And the problem with making aggressive claims about customary norms is that IHL really only does work if people agree to make it work. The worst thing that could happen is to have countries not even pay IHL lip service. But this all gets to the really, really hard but fundamental question of international law: enforcement. I was piqued by you originally using the term “legislation” just because the way we think about legislation, there is usually an executive to enforce it. That’s part of what makes it “law.” But there is no such thing in international law, and given how overwhelmingly powerful states continue to be, there won’t be in my lifetime. I love the idea of international law, but this is what makes it so slippery and difficult and frustrating.