48Highlander said:
damn edumacated fellers think they know allthing
I don't know jack but what little I do know I like to argue about.
Right, but what you quoted was not part of the UN charter, so it doesn't really support what you were saying. Quote the right document next time! ;D
The two are in the same spirit, and the Nuremberg example was more poignant because it was the US spearheading the entire effort.
As far as "aggressive war" goes, is there really any other kind?
I understand what you're saying, but it's too difficult to define exactly what constitutes an "illegal war". In some cases it's pretty clear-cut, but in other circumstances, such as the most recent US invasion of Iraq, and our own assistance in their invasion of Afghanistan...well, there's a lot of room for interpretation. And the problem is that most of the "judgements" are based on little more than popular opinion. Plus the problem of enforcement. International law is a joke unless there's an impartial body which can enforce it. The UN is neither impartial, nor can it enforce it's own decisions, so it's rather difficult to put any faith in it's laws.
I wouldn't characterize the World Court and ICJ as unfair institutions, it just so happens that politicians and alot of officers don't like being held accountable for their actions. The refusal by some Western countries to submit to the ICJ/World Court only emphasizes the fact that the West loves to apply its standards to everyone but itself and spout pretty rhetoric without actually adhering to it when it's inconvenient. So much of Western idealism, to coin a phrase, is just 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.
See, there's a good illustration of why it's so difficult to define "illegal" as far as warfare goes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the north had been receiving support from both the USSR and China for quite a while before the US came on the scene. The US didn't like the idea of another country going Red, so they stepped in to back their own candidate. Now you can define that as colonialism, or as an "aggresive war", or as an act of self-defence. A fairly strong argument can be made for any of the above, but once again, as long as there isn't an imparital body to rule on the legality of the situation, and to enforce it's decision, there's no way to say which definition is right.
Agreed, Vietnam is a tricky one and it's subject to differing interpretations. As for an "impartial body" - we'll never get one as long as states refuse to cede some sovereignty to the laws they want applied to everyone but themselves.
I'll have to do some more research into that, but I'll accept your explanation for now. I'm really not familiar with all the details of the ceasefire. I really don't understand why the US would agree to have the UN lay out the terms for the ceasefire.
It's debatable, as everything seems to be, but to me it seems clear that the ceasefire wasn't made or supervised unilaterally by the US, but rather by the UN. As such, it's UN jurisdiction, not US. But again, we could argue either side to death.
Leaving aside the fact that the UN carries out it purpose very selectively, it seems that by that definition ALL wars are "illegal". Which brings me right back to the absurdity of the concept. If the body charged with enforcing these laws cannot stay impartial and cannot enforce it's own decisions, then these laws become irrelevant. Imagine if our courts always sided with individuals of a certain ethnic background, and our police were unable to enforce the law. What purpose would our judicial system serve? The country would fall back on vigilantism, and the people would make and apply their own rules as they saw fit. The "law" would cease to be relevant.
Hence the somewhat anarchic system of international relations. The concept of aggressive war isn't really absurd, it's similar to an assault case - if you strike first, you're generally in the wrong. All war, I would think, is aggressive war insofar as one side must always strike first. Thus if things worked like they're supposed to, anyone who strikes first would be charged and rightfully so. If politicians (and/or senior officers) were likely to suffer personal punishment as a result of waging aggressive war, I dare say they'd be less likely to engage in it (I'm not saying it's a 100% deterrent, but it would certainly help).
Bull. Sure, "we" have to be consistant, but we don't have to follow all the rules that we set. A police officer has the right to search you if he beleives you may be violating the law. The ETF reserves the right to break down your doors and charge your house with weapons drawn. Yet we do not give the same rights to the average citizen. The body in power will always give itself powers which those it proposes to regulate do not have, and the same rules apply on the global level. Beleiving otherwise is delusional at best. So the only thing that "we" have to do is ensure that we have good cause when we invade another country. Wether the rest of the world agrees or not is irrelevant, although it's a good idea to seek the advice and support of other global powers.
Why wouldn't we have to follow the rules that we set? Are we above our own laws? The police officer searching the home is subject to the same laws as the searchee and regulation, oversight, and review. The searchee has an avenue for appeal and grievance. We cannot reasonably claim ourselves to be justified in executing any action against another state (except in rare circumstances - IE genocide, humanitarian intervention, aggressive war - which incidentally are identified by the UN as the few occasions justifying force) unless we submit to a higher authority for review and, if needs be, punishment. Otherwise we're just the self-appointed dictator, which hardly jives with our "yay yay democracy" tripe that we pour on everyone everytime we're looking for an excuse to do something.
Who is to determine what constitutes sufficient cause for invasion? The invader? It's completely unreasonable and in complete defiance of our society's principles. We are not the judge, jury, and executioner of the Earth, self-appointed by virtue of our belief in our own moral superiority. If we're going to behave like it, we need to shut up about democracy, liberty, the rule of law, etc. and openly admit that we're nothing more than self-interested, self-righteous twinks with no more legitimacy or morality than the people we're busy pointing fingers at. I'd be far happier knowing that we're not trying to hide it through some pathetic propagandistic veil that's not fooling anyone but ourselves and those few poor souls ignorant enough to buy what we're selling because they're starving and desperate.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in democracy, the rule of law, and all that glorious stuff but advancing it unilaterally, unequally, from the end of gun, and with no regard for the ideals we're supposed to live by is not the right way to go about it.
TCBF said:
"I'm a big boy now and I'm quite capable of brainwashing myself, ..."
- Rather successfully, too, evidently.
;D
Hey now, no more than you or anyone else. ^-^
Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
Then ALL wars are ''illegal wars'' because one country has to start the war so their can be a war.
All wars are illegal insofar as one side is waging aggressive war, yes. The defending or intervening parties are not criminal since they didn't initiate. See my response to 48's points for more. Everyone has a right to defend themselves or intervene on behalf of an illegally attacked party but states have no more legitimate justification in agression as I do in kicking in my neighbour's door and hacking his head off with a lawnmower blade because I don't like the way he minds his garden.