The international courts are courts in name only. They don’t have power because it is by design and thus any rulings are non-binding. The only real power there is is the UNSC, and it is extremely corrupt as everyone knows.
It sounds like for you the signature of legitimacy is not the soundness of legal judgments as developed within consensus and consent and principle based deliberation, but their enforceability with weapons. And so I think we probably have diametrically opposite ideas of what renders laws legitimate.
This comment reads like it was written by somebody who has only ever read books and never experienced the truth of “Might Makes Right.”
Just because he was an authoritarian communist doesn’t mean Mao was incorrect when he said that all political power derives from the barrel of a gun.
Similarly, a law means absolutely nothing if it has no teeth, no consequences if broken.
A court of experts may very well come to a consensus on a ruling. But if they have no way to enforce that ruling, or carry out sentencing, what good is it? It’s essentially just virtue signaling at that point.
Not the person you replied to, and I am not trying to sound elitist, but a lot of people have ill-informed views. If they simply didn’t know before, it’s okay; but a lot people proudly prance as if they’re right, when their views are Twitter-takes instead of coming from expert sources.
I did not make the rules, the ruling class did. If you are not aware, the UN is never meant to have legal power. Why do you think the UN General Assembly “pass” resolutions in favour of the oppressed (stopping the war in Ukraine , lifting sanctions on Cuba, stopping the Israeli settlement on Palestinian lands, declaring the war on Iraq as illegal), and yet nothing happened?
The UN is meant to be a “platform” for diplomacy, not act as the world government. If you read more about international “law”, the more you will realise how farcical and practically nonexistent it is. The terms accords, agreement and treaty don’t mean the same thing in international “law”. The United States even repeated several times they will invade The Hague should the international courts prosecute any American citizens.
Notice I have put quotations on some words, which is to highlight that in practice, they don’t have binding power and therefore don’t mean anything.
The international courts are courts in name only. They don’t have power because it is by design and thus any rulings are non-binding. The only real power there is is the UNSC, and it is extremely corrupt as everyone knows.
It sounds like for you the signature of legitimacy is not the soundness of legal judgments as developed within consensus and consent and principle based deliberation, but their enforceability with weapons. And so I think we probably have diametrically opposite ideas of what renders laws legitimate.
This comment reads like it was written by somebody who has only ever read books and never experienced the truth of “Might Makes Right.”
Just because he was an authoritarian communist doesn’t mean Mao was incorrect when he said that all political power derives from the barrel of a gun.
Similarly, a law means absolutely nothing if it has no teeth, no consequences if broken.
A court of experts may very well come to a consensus on a ruling. But if they have no way to enforce that ruling, or carry out sentencing, what good is it? It’s essentially just virtue signaling at that point.
Not the person you replied to, and I am not trying to sound elitist, but a lot of people have ill-informed views. If they simply didn’t know before, it’s okay; but a lot people proudly prance as if they’re right, when their views are Twitter-takes instead of coming from expert sources.
I did not make the rules, the ruling class did. If you are not aware, the UN is never meant to have legal power. Why do you think the UN General Assembly “pass” resolutions in favour of the oppressed (stopping the war in Ukraine , lifting sanctions on Cuba, stopping the Israeli settlement on Palestinian lands, declaring the war on Iraq as illegal), and yet nothing happened?
The UN is meant to be a “platform” for diplomacy, not act as the world government. If you read more about international “law”, the more you will realise how farcical and practically nonexistent it is. The terms accords, agreement and treaty don’t mean the same thing in international “law”. The United States even repeated several times they will invade The Hague should the international courts prosecute any American citizens.
Notice I have put quotations on some words, which is to highlight that in practice, they don’t have binding power and therefore don’t mean anything.