International law

[starvingartist]

Does International Law undermine Democracy?

If your country is governed by those whom you have elected but the ultimate power lies in International law is your involvement in government lessened in a sense?

Can International law ever work in a world run by individual countries with vastly differing views, governement bodies, etc?

Is nationalism good or bad? Or is nationalism the force that drives behaviours which are purely motivated by personal, individualistic gain?

But could there ever be peace, an internationally respected governing body whose laws are enforced if there is more then one type of governement be it capitalistic, socialist, etc?

[cintron]

International Law is a phrase that parties like to invoke only when they can successfully use it to lever world opinion against someone else.

It's also something that 3rd world nations conviniently neglect and "forget about" when they're fighting a first rate army...

and it's also something that a lot of people seem to excuse 3rd world nations from being held to, when they are fighting said army.

But lord forbid the US violates international law. The bad guys can fight dirty because they're the underdogs, but if we so much as break one little rule, we'll never hear the end of it.

All in all, I think international law, as applied to conflicts, is a complete fucking joke.

geneva convention = something that only us, the british and the Swiss abide by. Otherwise it's used as propoganda material by everyone else.

[sassa]

Originally posted by cintron

International Law is a phrase that parties like to invoke only when they can successfully use it to lever world opinion against someone else.

It's also something that 3rd world nations conviniently neglect and "forget about" when they're fighting a first rate army...

and it's also something that a lot of people seem to excuse 3rd world nations from being held to, when they are fighting said army.

But lord forbid the US violates international law. The bad guys can fight dirty because they're the underdogs, but if we so much as break one little rule, we'll never hear the end of it.

All in all, I think international law, as applied to conflicts, is a complete fucking joke.

geneva convention = something that only us, the british and the Swiss abide by. Otherwise it's used as propoganda material by everyone else.

oh please. certainly it has been the US and its "allies" which have forgotten international law. The minute they decided to go to war against Iraq and the wishes of the majority of the world. They also violated international law by entering Iraq without a declaration of war from Saddam, Iraq's leader not so long ago. This, under international law, is not permissible and is labeled as a military conquest, or invasion if you will. I love how they like the lighten things up by using stupid terms like "Liberation Iraq"...please...liberating them for what?

Also, the fact that the US was the occupying force, it had an obligation to protect the territory and enforce some sort of rule, (if you are going to invade a country and usurp their sources, then at least protect the local treasures). The fact that they allowed looters and other lowlives to raid museums and businesses is not permissible. You have to maintain some order if you're going to declare to everyone that you will impose an interim regime there.

International law is something that the world will come to respect and enforce more as regional integration continues in the world. It is already happening, what with the EU enforcing certain rules about immigration, while Asia has their own organization ASEAN, which is slowly trying to decrease Asia's dependence on exported goods. Perhaps even one day we will come to a point where we will have a world government, represented by all the members of the globe...or maybe it's a pipe dream...who knows.

Nationalism is something for people to hold on to when they don't have much to depend on. A lot of diaspora have survived and maintained their culture, values,language, and religion through maintaining nationalistic views and ideas amongst themselves. While it is a positive thing in that all people should be proud of their origins, there is also a fine line between being proud and being racist. There should also be another code of conduct the world should follow in regards as to how to treat another human being, regardless of their race,gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. This is something the world has yet to reach...

The problem it seems nowadays with the world is that there are too many differing ideas and views and cultures. If there was some way each region could try to work at a local level on enforcing certain ties between all peoples and nation-states among then, then slowly after that try to maintain relations with other regions of the world, it might possibly work...but right now, who knows where things will lead...

[sassa]

Principles of the

Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

No. 82

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.

Introductory note: Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the Intemational Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374-378).

Authentic text: English Text published in Report of the International Law Commission Covering its Second Session, 5 June-29 Duly 1950, Document A/1316, pp. 11-14.

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle Vl

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

Crimes against peace:

Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.