Main Page Contact Register Log In

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.

The subtlety is that in the case of a League of Democracies type body, the rules they enforce would be the ones they consider moral. So they would have a basis for saying those who violate their dicta were immoral, but the dicta would be in place because the actions they forbid were considered immoral, rather than the actions being immoral because they violate the dicta.
Silent Cal
Replies (1)

There are lots of non-democracies in the world. The issue isn't clear enough to be settled. I am of the impression that when people invoke internationalk law arguments they fully well know of their "might makes right" angle. This is like saying that you allow your neighbour to generally conduct their lives and do minor mistakes but if he does something truly offensive its your duty to set him straight and bust through the wall with fists.

I don't think it was ever the case that relationships between countries would be organised by democracy. That is international organizations are there to mediate things but countries never went asking anyone for permission.
Replies (0)