Main Page Contact Register Log In


It can be, with limitations.

One way is to have an opt-in agreement with all members agreeing to punish anyone who violates the agreement. Obviously this can only cover things lots of nations agree on, or else only cover smaller subsets of nations. Fwiffo discusses these well.

The other way is for a group of powerful nations to agree to enforce something and admit the justifications are not internationally impartial. As worrying as this is, I think I'm okay with it as long as it's done carefully. But right or wrong, it's clearly meaningful.

So a group of powerful and like-minded nations could say "We declare the following things illegal, and since we have the guns and the money, what we say goes." This is essentially the League of Democracies proposal.






So a group of powerful and like-minded nations could say "We declare the following things illegal, and since we have the guns and the money, what we say goes." This is essentially the League of Democracies proposal.


So this is basically the law of the jungle, except that it's not being presented as such. It's one thing to admit that a bunch of countries decided to play the world's policeman, and these are their rules. Another thing is to present everything perceived as opposing the so called international law as immoral and wrong. Also I feel like it is generally accepted that democracy is the best political system we have today to run a country, but when it comes to relationship between different countries, such principles are not applied anymore, even though we seem to pretend they still do, via UN and other international institutions.
69%
Alice
stars0
Replies (3)