7 ms·

My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of toothless resolutions make any difference beyond showing that the ICC essentially has no power to enforce it

• hilbert42 2y ago
  "It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based world order" dead." Correct, and that's what happened only about a decade after WWI—the War to End All Wars and look what happened. I'm fearful history might repeat itself. It has a bad habit of doing so and often with unexpected twists.
  • com 2y ago
    Justice has to be declared as an essential principle of human organisation. If the 1984 vision of a boot stamping on a human face forever is going to work out to be true, then so be it. The ICJ is at least holding out against that future. What will you (as a human) choose to do? These days and years are going to be definitional I think.
    • hilbert42 2y ago
      "Justice has to be declared as an essential principle of human organisation." Rereading your post days later perhaps I should have added to mine that justice has long been essential for the proper functioning of society. Likely the quintessential example of just how long justice has been considered important to societies comes from a text written over two millennia ago—Plato's Republic. Plato considers justice so significant that he begins in Book I to ask 'What is Justice?' and then goes on to explain why it is so important to society. Therein, he constructs one of the most satisfying and logical debates ever written. Plato pits the sophist Thrasymachus up against the philosopher Socrates in a battle of wits. Thrasymachus opens with a salvo of reasons why justice is everyman for himself and bit by bit Socrates systematically demolishes Thrasymachus' arguments and rebuilds them into the notion that justice is much broader and more important concept—a matter for society as a whole to embrace rather than the sophist's narrow, selfish view which only has self-interest in mind. This is a wonderful dialogue and I've read it many times since I first learned about it in philosophy decades ago. And I'd posit that it has survived for so long throughout the ages because so many consider what it has to say about justice as being too important for it to be lost. Not only do I consider Plato's take on justice just as important now as when it was written but also this cleverly constructed dialogue ought to be taken as a template for how political debate should be conducted both on and off the internet instead of the disorganized rabblerousing where only the loudest and outrageous are heard, as is so often the case nowadays. There are many copies of the Republic in English on the internet, perhaps the best known is Benjamin Jowett's translation/revision of 1888 (it's the version I learned from). Here's a link to that copy on Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm Edit: this MIT version is better formatted for smartphones and other mobile devices but it's sans intro (Gutenberg and the MIT download versions do have the full intro, foreword etc., but that's not necessary except for diehards and students): http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html
    • hilbert42 2y ago
      "The ICJ is at least holding out against that future." ICJ? Are you implying that what I said, implied or inferred was against the ICC? Let me be clear, I nether said, meant nor inferred any of those things. In fact I'm in favor of the ICC despite the fact it's a paper tiger in areas where it's most needed. Edit: that said, like many, I've some criticisms all of which other comments have echoed. Like most things the ICC is a compromise in an imperfect world, it's better than nothing though.
    • ben_w 2y ago
      Merely getting "declared" is not enough — North Korea "declares" itself to be a democracy — what matters is actually doing it. The relevance of the ICC etc. is rooted in how much people actually do, not just say.
    • com 2y ago
      Apologies, typo, ICJ -> ICC
    • ashoeafoot 2y ago
      Justice is self hypnosis and self idealization that settles in when there is plenty to go around. If there isn't its just a threatening word , whose values is mostly "we get you all when the good times roll back around ." Which they usually don't do unless there are major scientific breakthroughs generating surplus and a amnesty after armistice.
      • com 2y ago
        Reflecting on these words, it’s clear that many people take a “realist” perspective on power in and between human societies, and see no reason at all to strive to create better conditions for all or even most humans. My take: it’s a luxury position that probably only makes sense if you’ve been a winner in the birth lottery of the global elite. They are the enablers of power-for-power’s sake populists and dead-eyed bureaucrats because they are certain, at least until too late, that bad things won’t happen to them of their loved ones.
• ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > have declared the "rules-based world order" dead I have hunker are confusing two things here - there is international law, which the US and other delinquents break regularly. And there is Rules based world order, which is what US talks about and attempts to impose. For example imposing sanctions on Russia does not have basis in international law, but is part of ‘rules based order’
  • aguaviva 2y ago
    For example imposing sanctions on Russia does not have basis in international law, Of course it does. Every country is free to choose which countries it does business with.
    • cue_the_strings 2y ago
      Bear in mind that most of the time, sanctions not only prevent you from doing business with the sanctioned entity, but also with any other entity that's doing business with them.
      • aguaviva 2y ago
        Bear in mind that this has no bearing on the point under discussion.
        • sudosysgen 2y ago
          It does, actually. Secondary sanctions are an impediment to free trade and frequently argued to contravene against international law as a result. You could take it up at the WTO if the US didn't just destroy it a couple years ago.
          • aguaviva 2y ago
            Secondary sanctions are an impediment to free trade and frequently argued to contravene against international law as a result. Can you point to any notable instances of such arguments? (It's easily searchable I'm sure, but I'd appreciate any tips you have).
• fmajid 2y ago
  Netanyahu and Gallant will no longer be able to travel to Europe, and likely will not want to fly over Europe either (thus not to the US either).
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Presumably if they get invited to Europe it will be with assurance from the state that nothing happens to them. And traveling uninvited is probably a bad move anyway. So not much difference. If you mean to imply that Europe is somehow going to shoot down their planes if they fly over that’s obviously absurd.
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      > If you mean to imply that Europe is somehow going to shoot down their planes if they fly over that’s obviously absurd. Shoot down? No. Force them down? There's precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
      • jojobas 2y ago
        Morales's plane was not forced down, it wasn't allowed in some airspaces and requested landing due to instrumentation issues; it also wasn't searched. One can also fly from Israel to NY over international waters only adding some 400km to the route.
        • ceejayoz 2y ago
          > One can also fly from Israel to NY over international waters only adding some 400km to the route. No, you can't. You'd go through either Spanish or Moroccan airspace; the strait is 7.7 nautical miles across.
          • tzs 2y ago
            From what I've read the Strait of Gibraltar is covered by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which guarantees ships and planes that are just traveling through to get from one area of international waters to another area of international waters the right to do so without interference.
• edanm 2y ago
  > My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of toothless resolutions make any difference beyond showing that the ICC essentially has no power to enforce its warrants? Absolutely this matters. This effectively limits where Netanyahu and Gallant can travel to. That's a big deal for a head of state. It sends a signal to all of Europe to be wary of doing business with Israel, which is a big deal. We also don't know if there are any hidden warrants for other Israelis, and more importantly, if this is a precedent for future warrants. If the court starts issuing warrants for other IDF military personnel, that becomes a huge negative for Israelis.
  • Animats 2y ago
    At some point Netanyahu will be out of power. He's been voted out of office before. He's in trouble politically. He promised a short, victorious war over Gaza, and got into a long major war against Iran and more countries instead. The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC simply to get him off the political stage.
    • dustyventure 2y ago
      > The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC The next person to win a fight for a most exclusive position may decide it should be of substantially less value.. But usually only as a tactic to get the position.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • edanm 2y ago
      > At some point Netanyahu will be out of power. I wish and hope that's true. But I think some of your analysis is really incorrect, unfortunately. > He's been voted out of office before. Yes, he was out of power for about a year of the last 15 or so years, and got back into power. > He's in trouble politically. True, and I hope it stays that way. However the elections are still two years away, there doesn't seem to be any pathway to forcing the elections to happen sooner, and he is gaining ground, not losing it. It is very much a possibility that he holds on to power. > He promised a short, victorious war over Gaza, and got into a long major war against Iran and more countries instead. I'm not sure he actually promised a short war. That said, the war against Lebanon is probably the most successful thing he's done in terms of restoring his power. It's entirely possible that acting more aggressively against more enemies is a winning strategy for him. > The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC simply to get him off the political stage. This basically reads as completely wrong to me. Almost every politician on every side of the aisle in Israel has condenmed the ICC. The intrusion into Israeli sovereignity is a big blow to Israel, implying that Israel's democracy isn't trusted to hold people accountable by ourselves. Even if privately opposition leaders would want Netanyahu gone, giving him up would be suicide politically.
• anon291 2y ago
  There was never a 'rules-based world order'. We live purely in Pax Americana and every government exists at the pleasure of the United States. If the US wanted to, and if it did it correctly, it could easily conquer most countries. Afghanistan happened because America lost the will, not the ability. Had America gone the normal colonial route, Afghanistan would look a lot different today.
  • danenania 2y ago
    > If the US wanted to, and if it did it correctly, it could easily conquer most countries. It could possibly conquer many countries by largely destroying them as was done to Germany and Japan, but since the US is a democracy and a sizable portion of its people have morals and aren't sociopaths, it's politically impossible to fight a war this way in the modern era without some kind of extreme provocation. Even immediately after 9/11, I think most Americans would not have signed on to a campaign of total war in Afghanistan with multiple millions dead. And even back when America did pretty well take the gloves off, doing nearly everything it could short of nuclear weapons in Korea and Vietnam, it still couldn't win. So I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that any decent-sized country could be conquered easily even if the 'will' was there.
    • anon291 2y ago
      > Even immediately after 9/11, I think most Americans would not have signed on to a campaign of total war in Afghanistan with multiple millions dead. This falls clearly under 'not wanting to'.
      • danenania 2y ago
        Fair enough. I guess my point is that even if military and political leaders did want to take this approach, they'd face massive popular resistance. So it kind of depends on what you mean when you say a country 'wants' something. To wit, some ~60% of Americans currently oppose offensive arms sales to Israel[1], and yet it continues. Would you say America wants this to happen? 1 - https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israel-weapons-gaza/ https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israe...
• joejohnson 2y ago
  The rules-based order was always a fiction; international law is a tool used solely against America’s enemies. This arrest warrant could be executed in a day if the US would stop supporting this genocide, but that won’t happen. They will sooner invite Netanyahu back to the UN to order more air strikes on refugees.
  • dotancohen 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • babkayaga 2y ago
    the warrant is not for genocide, you did not even read it, did you?
• elcritch 2y ago
  Should Russia’s military really be included among the most powerful in the world? They haven’t been able to defeat Ukraine which is much smaller and weaker. On paper Russia is a dominant military power but in reality their equipment is poorly maintained, their training seems limited, and the leadership full of nepotism or incompetence. China likely has a much better army, but it’s hard to say without a large scale conflict. Hopefully we won’t find out.
• phs318u 2y ago
  Lots of things that have a real effect in the world are a convenient fiction. The fact that most people on the planet believe that the small paper rectangles printed by the US government have some value, is a consensual belief simultaneously held but no less a fiction. The rules based order of the world was once something people believed in, and therefore expected others to conform to. Until they didn’t (for lots of reasons all of which cumulatively perturbed the system such that it’s flipped from a stable state and into a meta-stable state).
  • sir0010010 2y ago
    There are a finite amount of the small paper rectangles available (yes the supply is increasing, but it is finite at any moment) AND these small paper rectangles are required in order for US residents/citizens that earn income in any currency in order to stay out of prison. So, in other words, not a fiction.
    • phs318u 2y ago
      And yet not all pieces of paper are believed to be equal. Some pieces of paper will buy you a loaf of bread and others will buy you a tank full of gas. The difference lies in the magic squiggles printed on the pieces of paper. In other words, the belief that a certain number value equals a fair exchange for a physical good or service. This is a consensual belief. If an extra 0 appeared magically overnight on every piece of paper, what has changed? People will believe they have “more” than they did before. If instead of magic, the government announced a policy of reissuing recycled bits of paper that have had an extra zero printed on them, would people believe they had “more”?
• YZF 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • sudosysgen 2y ago
    The standard isn't harm, it's war crimes. There is clear evidence that Israel deliberately withheld food and medicine from civilians in a calculated manner, which is a war crime that no one is alleging in the fight against ISIS.
    • YZF 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • lolc 2y ago
        > Population that refuses to evacuate, The people in Gaza have no options to move. > Why is this all on Israel? Because the IDF occupy the area.
        • YZF 2y ago
          [flagged]
• owenversteeg 2y ago
  I'd argue that the "rules-based world order" as most people perceive it never really existed. Some will say that it existed for a brief moment in the 90s-2000s. Back then, most countries played nice with the international treaties even if there were no penalties for noncompliance, right? No - it just appeared that way. The 90s and 2000s were a unipolar world, the peak of the American Empire, and America made it eminently clear what would happen if you didn't get in line. If you're a small irrelevant country you would comply with the Treaty on Migratory Slugs or the Convention on Widgets not because of any written penalties, but because to not comply would be to reject the single world power and bear its wrath. Now we're back to the state of the world as it has always been - multipolar - and it has once more become obvious that things only matter when backed up by force, leverage, and incentives. Look at things with teeth behind them - NATO borders, export controls and ASML, artificial islands in the South China Sea, control of Hong Kong, Russia in Syria or any of the other treaties with military bases. There are papers and laws and declarations on both sides of all of those things, but real-world control always follows force, leverage and incentives.
  • aguaviva 2y ago
    Some will say that it existed for a brief moment in the 90s-2000s. So were the Nuremberg Trials not an instance of the RBWO? (And all the UN mediations in e.g. Palestine, Korea, etc. from its very founding)
    • sofixa 2y ago
      The UN mediation and general work in Palestine was objectively a failure. Korea... it preserved South Korea's dictator in power, which allowed for a modern democratic and prosperous South Korea to happen. Back then it was little more than protecting the US-backed dictator against the Soviets-backed one. Both were pretty terrible and murderous.
      • aguaviva 2y ago
        In regard to Korea -- it was also about the principle of maintaining recognized borders, and their involiability. The UN was also instrumental in bringing the conflict to an end (along with Stalin's death and the general state of exhaustion on both sides -- but nonetheless, it was instrumental). And yes, they were both awful dictatorships at the time (and the South would continue to be, for decades to come) -- but's also not like there isn't a considerable difference between the two societies, now, generations later. Palestine - many failures, but there've also been many important resolutions that have kept the conflict (at least somewhat) framed in terms of the RBWO and the rights of the region's indigenous inhabitants. We also have the Geneva Conventions, etc. So in sum - yes, many failures, but on balance I see the glass as more half-full than half-empty, on this issue.