5 ms·

Since at the most base level the use of force is necessary to create laws, bombing is its own legal justification. We're making an international law that says

Since at the most base level the use of force is necessary to create laws, bombing is its own legal justification. We're making an international law that says don't use chemical weapons, although the amount of force probably won't be high enough to make it clear how serious an offense it is, meaning that it will probably do not much. Then again it appears slightly better than letting the use of chemical weapons slide.

csharpminor 13y ago
1. Laws are a system of agreements that a community agrees to. The "law" created by this action will be weakened because it is the outcome of political circumstance, not a defined and objective system. 2. Intervention by the U.S. may backfire by incentivizing dictators to stockpile chemical weapons. One of the major reasons that a boots-on-the-ground invasion is not an option is the presence of these weapons.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  1. Dictators can make laws without the agreement of a community; enfranchisement is not required for lawmaking. The only thing that establishes a law is the use of force as a punishment for breaking it. There is no other condition, although other things may be involved in the process. 2. I have no real idea whether the outcome of this will be good or bad, it seems like it could go either way. I'm mostly just clarifying that the words law and force go hand in hand; this is neither good nor bad, it just is.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Hate to say it, but international "law" has as much actual basis as the scare quotes I give it. Much of it is built more on custom than on ironclad stricture, and the parts that are very strict the U.S. has never bothered to ratify, so claiming that the U.S. must comply with Russia's demands makes as much sense as saying that Minnesota should enforce Saskatchewan's legal code. The Kosovo bombings in the late 90s were also not sanctioned by the U.N. and yet the world didn't fall apart then (and in fact, can be argued that it was indeed instrumental to bringing peace). And really, it's hard to argue that there's ever a persuasive strictly legal basis to employ the use of force against nations in a role other than self-defense, which has very interesting corollaries of its own. For example, was the U.K.'s and France's opposition to Germany's war in Poland even legally just? Especially in the U.K.'s case, they almost certainly could have made a separate peace with Hitler but chose to declare a state of war for some other nation entirely. Don't talk about treaty obligations either, they certainly demonstrated they were willing to part ways with that given their treatment of Czechoslovakia. As for your second point, it's pretty apparent that dictators are already incentivized to stockpile chemical weapons. Dictators have had (and used) chemical weapons for war for decades and if anything, should be more incentivized to use them after seeing the tepid world response to thousands of non-combatant fatalities in Syria.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Hey, this is a tangent, but I have two questions since I like hearing your thoughts on these matters even if I don't always agree. 1) Is it accurate to see international relations today as anarcho-capitalism? 2) What do you think of world federalism?
    - jessedhillon 13y ago
      Look up neoliberalism and neorealism.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Thank-you! Which neoliberalism do you mean, the WP page is super confusing. I'm assuming the original meaning? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
        jessedhillon 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_(international_relations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_(international_re... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relat... In both cases, the international relations sense of the term.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I'm not quite in tune enough with my inner PoliSci to give a good compare/contrast argument between anarcho-capitalism and international politics, at least not without re-reading the Wikipedia. However it's an insightful argument. Certainly there are the similarities that in both systems there is no central force-monopolizer that adjudicates disagreements, there is only whoever has the bigger stick in a given area. Likewise countries can choose their own economic adventure in many ways by choosing which currency to use, what fiscal policies to set, and what major ideological alignment they will fall in with (which has large implications for things like trade). Here though the U.S. has been fairly successful in trying to standardize a lot of the economic interplay amongst the nations (e.g. the Bretton Woods accords), but again other nations could do something different if they wished. As far as world federalism, I'm assuming you mean some type of world-wide central government that has specific delegated responsibilities and authorities and that would operate "on top" of the existing national governments. There's a lot to be said for the idea... you'd finally actually have "international law", ways of resolving conflicts amongst nations (since there will be actual "world police" of some sort), etc. Certainly the normal example in the U.S. is the slightly wiser Federal government sometimes have to lead state and local governments to Do the Right Thing by the nose if necessary (e.g. voting rights for minorities). But on the other hand such as system tends to accrete power towards the top over time, and you would thus tend to end up with the needs of the many (i.e. China, India) outweighing the needs of the rest, or (more likely) the needs of the already rich (U.S., E.U., etc.) outweighing the needs of the rest of the developing nations. Either way I can see that going poorly for nations like the Philippines or Malaysia, who could over time be gerrymandered right out of resources that would otherwise contribute to their economies. I used to be real idealistic about such Star Trek-style world governments but at this point the idea would probably introduce more worries for me than potential benefits.
trevelyan 13y ago
False dichotomy. It is entirely possible to hold people responsible for war crimes without killing people. A good first step for the United States would be to ratify the 1977 protocols to the Geneva Convention, which explicitly define these actions as crimes against humanity and thus require certain legal responses.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Oh, I didn't mean that killing people was the only way to make laws. Locking them up or taking their stuff away works too. But upholding a law against people who don't want to comply always requires the use of force.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    You missed the point. The United States has not ratified the Geneva Protocols. The first step in upholding international law in this case should be ratifying those agreements. I am in favor of those responsible for these atrocities being tried in court. But if the United States does not believe this law applies to itself, it is hardly the appropriate agent for enforcing it on other countries which have not ratified it, especially since its solution (killing) is as morally problematic as the original crimes.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Okay, so agreed that the US is being hypocritical here. My point was only ever that regardless of morality, the use of force is always legal, and synonymous with establishing law, unless there is a greater force making it illegal. There is nobody that will punish the US for punishing Syria, so therefore the US gets to make the law.
      - trevelyan 13y ago
        If legality is nothing more than the will of the strong then the concept of "law" is meaningless as nothing can be illegal by definition. It is also senseless to argue that force "establishes" law, since you have already claimed that legality is at all times subject to the whims of the powerful. Quite seriously, you might want to read The Republic if you haven't yet. Thrasymachus and Socrates have an exchange somewhat along these lines over whether might makes right, and Thrasymachus does not end up the better for it.

csharpminor 13y ago

1. Laws are a system of agreements that a community agrees to. The "law" created by this action will be weakened because it is the outcome of political circumstance, not a defined and objective system. 2. Intervention by the U.S. may backfire by incentivizing dictators to stockpile chemical weapons. One of the major reasons that a boots-on-the-ground invasion is not an option is the presence of these weapons.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
1. Dictators can make laws without the agreement of a community; enfranchisement is not required for lawmaking. The only thing that establishes a law is the use of force as a punishment for breaking it. There is no other condition, although other things may be involved in the process. 2. I have no real idea whether the outcome of this will be good or bad, it seems like it could go either way. I'm mostly just clarifying that the words law and force go hand in hand; this is neither good nor bad, it just is.
mpyne 13y ago
Hate to say it, but international "law" has as much actual basis as the scare quotes I give it. Much of it is built more on custom than on ironclad stricture, and the parts that are very strict the U.S. has never bothered to ratify, so claiming that the U.S. must comply with Russia's demands makes as much sense as saying that Minnesota should enforce Saskatchewan's legal code. The Kosovo bombings in the late 90s were also not sanctioned by the U.N. and yet the world didn't fall apart then (and in fact, can be argued that it was indeed instrumental to bringing peace). And really, it's hard to argue that there's ever a persuasive strictly legal basis to employ the use of force against nations in a role other than self-defense, which has very interesting corollaries of its own. For example, was the U.K.'s and France's opposition to Germany's war in Poland even legally just? Especially in the U.K.'s case, they almost certainly could have made a separate peace with Hitler but chose to declare a state of war for some other nation entirely. Don't talk about treaty obligations either, they certainly demonstrated they were willing to part ways with that given their treatment of Czechoslovakia. As for your second point, it's pretty apparent that dictators are already incentivized to stockpile chemical weapons. Dictators have had (and used) chemical weapons for war for decades and if anything, should be more incentivized to use them after seeing the tepid world response to thousands of non-combatant fatalities in Syria.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Hey, this is a tangent, but I have two questions since I like hearing your thoughts on these matters even if I don't always agree. 1) Is it accurate to see international relations today as anarcho-capitalism? 2) What do you think of world federalism?
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    Look up neoliberalism and neorealism.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Thank-you! Which neoliberalism do you mean, the WP page is super confusing. I'm assuming the original meaning? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
      - jessedhillon 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_(international_relations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_(international_re... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relat... In both cases, the international relations sense of the term.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I'm not quite in tune enough with my inner PoliSci to give a good compare/contrast argument between anarcho-capitalism and international politics, at least not without re-reading the Wikipedia. However it's an insightful argument. Certainly there are the similarities that in both systems there is no central force-monopolizer that adjudicates disagreements, there is only whoever has the bigger stick in a given area. Likewise countries can choose their own economic adventure in many ways by choosing which currency to use, what fiscal policies to set, and what major ideological alignment they will fall in with (which has large implications for things like trade). Here though the U.S. has been fairly successful in trying to standardize a lot of the economic interplay amongst the nations (e.g. the Bretton Woods accords), but again other nations could do something different if they wished. As far as world federalism, I'm assuming you mean some type of world-wide central government that has specific delegated responsibilities and authorities and that would operate "on top" of the existing national governments. There's a lot to be said for the idea... you'd finally actually have "international law", ways of resolving conflicts amongst nations (since there will be actual "world police" of some sort), etc. Certainly the normal example in the U.S. is the slightly wiser Federal government sometimes have to lead state and local governments to Do the Right Thing by the nose if necessary (e.g. voting rights for minorities). But on the other hand such as system tends to accrete power towards the top over time, and you would thus tend to end up with the needs of the many (i.e. China, India) outweighing the needs of the rest, or (more likely) the needs of the already rich (U.S., E.U., etc.) outweighing the needs of the rest of the developing nations. Either way I can see that going poorly for nations like the Philippines or Malaysia, who could over time be gerrymandered right out of resources that would otherwise contribute to their economies. I used to be real idealistic about such Star Trek-style world governments but at this point the idea would probably introduce more worries for me than potential benefits.

trevelyan 13y ago

False dichotomy. It is entirely possible to hold people responsible for war crimes without killing people. A good first step for the United States would be to ratify the 1977 protocols to the Geneva Convention, which explicitly define these actions as crimes against humanity and thus require certain legal responses.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Oh, I didn't mean that killing people was the only way to make laws. Locking them up or taking their stuff away works too. But upholding a law against people who don't want to comply always requires the use of force.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  You missed the point. The United States has not ratified the Geneva Protocols. The first step in upholding international law in this case should be ratifying those agreements. I am in favor of those responsible for these atrocities being tried in court. But if the United States does not believe this law applies to itself, it is hardly the appropriate agent for enforcing it on other countries which have not ratified it, especially since its solution (killing) is as morally problematic as the original crimes.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Okay, so agreed that the US is being hypocritical here. My point was only ever that regardless of morality, the use of force is always legal, and synonymous with establishing law, unless there is a greater force making it illegal. There is nobody that will punish the US for punishing Syria, so therefore the US gets to make the law.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      If legality is nothing more than the will of the strong then the concept of "law" is meaningless as nothing can be illegal by definition. It is also senseless to argue that force "establishes" law, since you have already claimed that legality is at all times subject to the whims of the powerful. Quite seriously, you might want to read The Republic if you haven't yet. Thrasymachus and Socrates have an exchange somewhat along these lines over whether might makes right, and Thrasymachus does not end up the better for it.