4 ms·

International law. The US- and many other countries- have long held that enough countries joining make international laws binding on all countries, even if that

International law. The US- and many other countries- have long held that enough countries joining make international laws binding on all countries, even if that country did not sign a particular treaty. (1) This doctrine sprang up after the great POW slaughters on the Eastern Front during WW2 (2) made it untenable to allow countries to avoid their responsibilities under the treaties by not signing or to invade a country that did not sign. 1: This is complicated on the Ottawa Treaty, where the US and a few other countries have held out- though at least under most administration's the US considers itself bound by Ottawa everywhere except on the Korean peninsula. 2: The USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention of 1929 (they wanted POW's to be explicitly allowed to form political organizations- e.g. Soviets, and to not be allowed to discriminate against POW's, while Article IX of the Convention mandated that POW's be racially segregated "as far as possible") and so the Nazi's technically did not break the convention in their horrible mistreatment of Soviet POW's that led to millions of deaths.

roenxi 1y ago
The US holds that to be true when they are on the side of the majority. It is less clear [0] that they hold that when they are in the minority. The US opinion seems to be that democratic law can overrule international law when there is a conflict as long as the democracy is governed to a certain standard. International law certainly doesn't represent a higher moral standard for the US. When it was set up the USSR and the British Empire both had vetos on what could be international law - it is hard to claim they had any higher moral opinion to add on how countries should treat each other. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
- __turbobrew__ 1y ago
  Rules for thee, but not for me. Seems like the current international order is if the US thinks you are violating international law they will kick the shit out of you, but if the US is violating international law they will also kick the shit out of you. That still doesn’t answer the question of what US generals do when given an order which violates international law.

roenxi 1y ago

The US holds that to be true when they are on the side of the majority. It is less clear [0] that they hold that when they are in the minority. The US opinion seems to be that democratic law can overrule international law when there is a conflict as long as the democracy is governed to a certain standard. International law certainly doesn't represent a higher moral standard for the US. When it was set up the USSR and the British Empire both had vetos on what could be international law - it is hard to claim they had any higher moral opinion to add on how countries should treat each other. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...

__turbobrew__ 1y ago
Rules for thee, but not for me. Seems like the current international order is if the US thinks you are violating international law they will kick the shit out of you, but if the US is violating international law they will also kick the shit out of you. That still doesn’t answer the question of what US generals do when given an order which violates international law.