4 ms·
You do it as part of an international order, i.e. an impartial UN. Though obviously we don't have that yet.
by j_maffe 9mo ago
You do it as part of an international order, i.e. an impartial UN. Though obviously we don't have that yet.
- DrBazza 9mo agoThe only 'leaders' that end up in the Hague and convicted are those forcibly captured via military action. And those 'orders' declared by the UN can, and be vetoed by China, Russia, USA, UK, and France. Guess which two use their veto all the time?
- pqtyw 9mo agoAnd there are not that many indications that we are moving towards that direction or we can even ever have. I guess that sort of idealism might have existed in the late 40s immediately after the UN was established but it never had a chance. External or internal (which seems rarely feasible unless the government is highly incompetent) regime change realistically is the only thing that worked.
- aebtebeten 9mo agoThat sort of idealism existed as late as 1962, but its leading proponent was cancelled in 1963: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46482997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46482997
- aebtebeten 9mo agoCome to think of it, WJC signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but then GWB unsigned it in 2002, which, coincidentally or uncoincidentally, was followed by the first reports of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone... in 2003