they seek a declaration from the court that defendants are violating their duty under customary international law
Here’s the nasty little secret about “international law” that people don’t seem to understand. The most powerful countries don’t have to abide by it. There are no mechanisms for enforcement. There aren’t world police who have international jurisdiction, there aren’t world courts that have international subpoena power. So the countries at the top can enforce it when it’s in their interest, and ignore it when it’s not. Them the rules of an anarchical system, “rules for thee not for me”
It really does make me wonder if people genuinely believe something would come of this. Honestly I’d love for there to be some kind of consequence but it’s pretty laughable to think that anything will happen when the power dynamic is so skewed
The goal is to expose and to try every avenue available. Which should be the logic thing to do in face of a genocide.
Maybe something comes out of it. Probably not. But in the latter case at least it is evident, that there is no moral high ground with the US and its allies. It is evident that working with these terror states creates complicity in the most heinous crimes and other countries can be held accountable for it.
It can create an understanding for future generations that neoliberalism like it is endorsed by both US parties or so called “social democrats” or “greens” in countries like Germany is nothing but fascism with extra steps.
And even bigger aspect of international law that people don’t seem to understand is who writes international law.
What we call “international law” is actually just a variety of treaties most countries have agreed to follow. So international law is actually just a vague consensus among the leaders of the countries of the world.
So international law doesn’t actually prohibit world leaders from doing the things they want to do. Because they wouldn’t agree to treaties that wouldn’t allow them to do what they want.
War is something countries do, so war is not against international law. But there are defined rules to conducting a war in international law. Sometimes there are civilian casualties in a war, so civilians casualties in a war doesn’t automatically mean the country broke international law. Blockades? That’s something countries want to do so that’s legal, in fact the rules around a blockade is defined in the oldest of international law.
Countries have militaries that wear uniforms so there’s additional protections for soldiers in uniform than there are for combatants that aren’t in uniform (like Hamas). Uniformed soldiers held captive are prisoners of war and must be released when the war is over. Non-uniformed combatants are basically stateless criminals and can be held indefinitely even after a war is concluded. Countries don’t need to take civilians hostage, so that’s against international law.
So Hamas taking hostages, civilian, off duty soldiers, even uniformed soldiers on duty, it’s all illegal. They aren’t following the rules of war and are criminals under international law.
As long as Israel follows the rules of conducting blockades and rules around how to conduct a war, these are legal under international law no matter how much people want to scream genocide.
It’s American foreign policy… there’s a reason the US helped write the laws for the ICC and yet still doesn’t cooperate. Because they don’t have to. That’s the way it rolls when your military is larger and more capable than the next 5 combined. What are they gonna do?
I think I missed the part where I defended Donald Trump. But if there’s nothing to defend Biden with, just blame it on Trump and hope everyone is stupid enough not to notice.
You don’t need to defend Trump if all of your time is spent spreading anti-Biden bullshit. It’s essentially the same thing at the end of the day because if you get your way….
Trump wins.
But you already know that. And we all know that you do.
What’s the end goal here?
Here’s the nasty little secret about “international law” that people don’t seem to understand. The most powerful countries don’t have to abide by it. There are no mechanisms for enforcement. There aren’t world police who have international jurisdiction, there aren’t world courts that have international subpoena power. So the countries at the top can enforce it when it’s in their interest, and ignore it when it’s not. Them the rules of an anarchical system, “rules for thee not for me”
It really does make me wonder if people genuinely believe something would come of this. Honestly I’d love for there to be some kind of consequence but it’s pretty laughable to think that anything will happen when the power dynamic is so skewed
Exactly.
The goal is to expose and to try every avenue available. Which should be the logic thing to do in face of a genocide.
Maybe something comes out of it. Probably not. But in the latter case at least it is evident, that there is no moral high ground with the US and its allies. It is evident that working with these terror states creates complicity in the most heinous crimes and other countries can be held accountable for it.
It can create an understanding for future generations that neoliberalism like it is endorsed by both US parties or so called “social democrats” or “greens” in countries like Germany is nothing but fascism with extra steps.
And even bigger aspect of international law that people don’t seem to understand is who writes international law.
What we call “international law” is actually just a variety of treaties most countries have agreed to follow. So international law is actually just a vague consensus among the leaders of the countries of the world.
So international law doesn’t actually prohibit world leaders from doing the things they want to do. Because they wouldn’t agree to treaties that wouldn’t allow them to do what they want.
War is something countries do, so war is not against international law. But there are defined rules to conducting a war in international law. Sometimes there are civilian casualties in a war, so civilians casualties in a war doesn’t automatically mean the country broke international law. Blockades? That’s something countries want to do so that’s legal, in fact the rules around a blockade is defined in the oldest of international law.
Countries have militaries that wear uniforms so there’s additional protections for soldiers in uniform than there are for combatants that aren’t in uniform (like Hamas). Uniformed soldiers held captive are prisoners of war and must be released when the war is over. Non-uniformed combatants are basically stateless criminals and can be held indefinitely even after a war is concluded. Countries don’t need to take civilians hostage, so that’s against international law.
So Hamas taking hostages, civilian, off duty soldiers, even uniformed soldiers on duty, it’s all illegal. They aren’t following the rules of war and are criminals under international law.
As long as Israel follows the rules of conducting blockades and rules around how to conduct a war, these are legal under international law no matter how much people want to scream genocide.
Rules for thee and not for me is the founding basis for conservative politics
Edit: fixed a typo
It’s American foreign policy… there’s a reason the US helped write the laws for the ICC and yet still doesn’t cooperate. Because they don’t have to. That’s the way it rolls when your military is larger and more capable than the next 5 combined. What are they gonna do?
The US is a deeply conservative country, but also has a very long history of not cooperating with others unless they can get something big out of it.
Hopefully get that Genocidal Geriatric behind bars for the rest of his miserable life.
But mostly dispel the illusion that the Democrats care about Justice no matter how hard they try to act on the Hunter Biden stuff.
Removed by mod
Look at this man proudly defending Genocide.
Look at this man proudly defending a Convicted Felon. Someone who has been found guilty of committing crimes. Donald Trump. Not Joe Biden
I think I missed the part where I defended Donald Trump. But if there’s nothing to defend Biden with, just blame it on Trump and hope everyone is stupid enough not to notice.
You don’t need to defend Trump if all of your time is spent spreading anti-Biden bullshit. It’s essentially the same thing at the end of the day because if you get your way….
Trump wins.
But you already know that. And we all know that you do.
Removed by mod
There
Removed by mod