The Greatest Crime in the History of the World

that got past me so yeh I think we can .... am finding their daily emails too much tho... while I am interested in geopolitics I dont have an hour every day for it.

Modern England is a combination of Celtic, Saxon, and Norman Elements, and it was at Hastings that the true spirit of England was demonstrated by the LOSING SIDE.

only a Serb could make that distinction

the English have always done rather well out of their invaders and celebrate the act of losing rather than mythologising their courage and defiance as losers: in their case and in Serbia's too, losing deservedly, to superior enemies and gaining from the experience

they moved on to greater things but Serbia it seems cannot

Ireland’s Cabinet unanimously agreed to recognize the independence of Kosovo late Feb. 28, The Associated Press reported Feb. 29. Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern said warfare in the past made Kosovo’s continued place within Serbia “unthinkable"

Also

A bomb went off just after midnight in Belgrade outside a radio station on Maksim Gorki Street, B92 reported Feb. 29, citing RTS. Police said the blast caused material damage. Belgrade TDI radio said the attack targeted the station and that employees have been subjected to pressure, threats and intimidation

By that logic, shouldn't every state south of the Mason Dixon line be independent of the USA?

Oh, that's right - it's a double standard

they had a civil war to settle that

Finally some sense being shown by the public of Serbia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7395368.stm

Whilst I would have liked to see Tadic take the majority vote and his party able to govern on it's own, I am more than satisfied to see a pro-EU move by the Serbs. This is probably the first time in the years since the Milosvic hand-over that I have had anything to be proud of in Serbian politics.

*its* own that is

So those people who fought and died in 1389 are betrayed? Those who fought to liberate Serbia from the Turks? All wasted, all pointless?

Tadic is still opposed to the cessation of Kosovo but he knows that getting into the EU is a priority for Serbia.

If it's either or, surely Kosovo has to come first?

It's a moral issue, BG. You of all people understand it. Some principles are worth any price. Sometimes you can't sell out your soul for a few pennies.

From what I understand of it, Tadic has played his cards very well so far. He basically condemned what Kosovo has done, in order to keep onside with the Serbian nationalists, but he hasn't actually stopped it. From my understanding of Serbia, democracy there is quite fragile. If he was seen as too soft on Kosovo, he could be ousted from power (correct me if I'm wrong). That or there would be major domestic unrest in Serbia. After saying the right things to appease the nationalists, and waiting a while for heads to cool, he is now carefully moving Serbia closer to the EU.

What a tight rope to walk, but he seems to be doing it so far

It would be a mistake to let Kosovo come first at this point because the sure result of doing so would be further isolation of Serbia from the EU and quite possibly (if the nationalists have it their way) another war. Kosovo is not worth that price. Moreover, Serbia can't pay that price.

Sebastian has accurately described Tadic's strategy. It's clever and effective. And I'm stoked that over half of the Serbian voting population are with him - finally they are showing some sense and sensibility.

If I have the choice of dying or raping a child, I choose to die.

Because sometimes the benefit to me (joining the EU, living) is not worth the cost (losing Kosovo, raping the child)

If you amend your last statement to read:

Because sometimes the benefit to me (keeping Kosovo, living) is not worth the cost (not joining the EU, raping the child)

then we can agree!

Hah, you're turning into Yaksha.

As I said before - it's simple. Do we sell our souls for 40 pieces of silver?

That's actually a compliment!



We disagree on the value to be placed on joining the EU on one hand and the value of keeping Kosovo, so since our starting points are entirely different we won't be able to reach any common ground on the end point.

LMAO, nigga please...

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15125.pdf[url][/url]

okay, that didn't quite work ... try again

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15125.pdf

so basically, to vadinho's horror I'm sure, it will be the ICJ that determines the legitimacy or not of Kosovo's declaration of independence

to vadinho's horror indeed



the core principle of international criminal law is not the state. the rise of individual responsibility post WWII for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity proves it.

as for Serbia shitting all over IL, read up on IL and come back and tell me that ethnic cleansing doesn't give rise to state responsibility.

International laws derive from states. No non-state actor has any sovereign power.

Ethnic cleansing is entirely within the state's authority as to the monopolisation of violence within its own borders.

your first two statements are correct

your third is wrong - if what you mean to say is that a state can treat those within its territory however it chooses (remember this includes residents and non-residents)

as per usual, you views on this topic are seriously out of date

or more precisely "that it is lawful for the state to treat those within its territory however it chooses"

JH has already said it.

Ethnic cleansing is a violation of international law which gives rise to individual and state responsibility, regardless of whether it is ethnic cleansing on state or foreign territory. Read up on Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, sweetheart.

That aside, whilst international laws do derive from states, sovereignty is not a defence to violations of those laws which through custom and/or convention have become binding on all states. Most international criminal law violations have that status.

How can they be out of date when they are a fundamental element of sovereignty?

If it's legal to intervene in the sovereign affairs of another country, then Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939 was entirely legal.

And going on about Geneva Conventions - hilarious. One can't sign an illegal contrac, can one? And by definition any contract that revokes a sovereign state's authority within its borders is illegal. Not worth the paper it's signed on.

Remember Munich?

And before you call me a monster, let's posit two worlds:
World 1 - no interference in the sovereignty of other states
World 2 - interference allowed

World 1 = no international wars. Millions, if not hundreds of millions of lives saved. The Holocaust kills perhaps a million people, rather than 6 million.

World 2 = the world we have today. International wars. 40 million+ dead in WW2. German Nazis swooping up Jews from Poland, Russia, France to gas and massacre.

It's sick you people support that world. And you cannot dispute my logic.

Hitler's invasion of Poland was a a violation of international law - crime of aggression - heard of it?

We live in world 2 where interference with sovereignty is allowed, but only in certain circumstances. Your logic AS USUAL is premised on a complete lack of or misunderstanding of international law.

logic you call it eh?

I thought we lived in World War 3 - Might Is Right and fuck law

not only that, his "logic" does not even accord with reality

Vadinho do they brain wash you at the Ministry of Defence, or wherever it is that you work at?

'....any contract that revokes a sovereign state's authority within its borders is illegal' - what kind of a muppet would make this statement? states, collectively can and DO agree to abrogate what you refer to as sovereignty all the time! ICC Statute, extradition agreements, Genocide Convention, Torture Convention, Convention against unlawful acts committed on fixed platforms located on the continental shelf FFS, all abrogate 'sovereignty'.

but your posited world would be too dangerous for world travel, because entry into a foreign state would mean being at the mercy of any sort of treatment whatsoever

that's just one problem with it

Oh I see. More legalistic hairsplitting. In certain circumstances. That leads to the complete bullshit that accompanied Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Six years later and still no answer as to whether the invasion was legal. Sorry, but I don't have time for that sort of crap.

Answer my question: which world would have seen fewer deaths? A world where interference in sovereignty is allowed, or one where it isn't.

I don't MISUNDERSTAND international law. But international law has as much validity as the Girl Scout Creed or whatever they have. When it comes up against a higher authority, it's utterly irrelevant. It makes lawyers feel good.

NO POLITICIAN allows international law to control his or her actions when it is counter-productive.

you could still sign diplomatic and visa agreements and you could even sign extradition agreements. but they'd be entirely voluntary

And people often sign agreements that abrogate their own laws i.e. buying from a place that says "no refunds" in breach of the consumer guarantees act.

You yourself understand that there are hierarchies of authority. Sovereignty comes higher than the toilet paper clauses of overpaid, underworked lawyers.

all treaties are voluntary

I suppose you are rejecting the notion of fundamental binding customary international law?

but how does it serve the world to turn the clock back - to the point where there are no minimum international standards, or basic human right norms, or minimum standards of treatment?

that only makes the world a worse place, not a better place

Also, what I'm saying is completely politically incorrect. But it comes from a lengthy study of history, politics, and war.

Machiavelli had it right. Hobbes had it right. Socrates had it right.

Remember the law is a servant. The law helps us keep people safe. The state is the ultimate means to keep people safe, even if occasionally one has short term harm for long term gain. The law serves the state, aiming to keep people safe, because all those other wonderful things like freedom of expression don't avail us if we're dead.

Unless the state is sovereign, we slip into a state of nature. Of constant, anarchic warfare.

Think I'm wrong?
Rwanda
Somalia
East Timor

Just a few examples.

SURELY it is an act of sovereignty to enter into an agreement vadinho? even on your own terms of reference, your argument crumbles.


The state is sovereign, but it can voluntarily abrogate its sovereignty, and states have been doing this for centuries. you ignore history. moreover, there are rules by which the states are bound REGARDLESS of their sovereignty - jus cogens, heard of it?

And for the record, you citing your academic endevours will not give you an air of authority. Not on this topic at least. It is quite clear from the claims that you are making that you fundamentally misunderstand international law. It is inconceivable to suggest that something like the Genocide Convention is an illegal contract not worth the paper that its written on. It is equally retarded to claim that there is no such thing as binding custom - if that is what you are even saying. To do so would be to ignore years of state practice and opinio juris - you'd be ignoring history!

And surely that is the problem? The fact that we allow political pawns and barely literate military officials to run our international relations. All those innocent people wiped out in internal conflicts from Former Yugoslavia to Rwanda to Cambodia would be what - collateral damage of vadinho's absolute sovereignty doctrine? Fuck your sovereignty vadinho. What we need is a supreme legal body to run the show, so that everyone from USA to Uganda is bound by the same minimum standards of justice, so that where there are violations of international laws and order everyone from Bush to Bashir is held accountable, as opposed selective enforcement and pandering to ignorant agenda-driven idiots in politics and the military whom you hold sacrosanct.

The problem with international law is not its existence, but its enforcement.

will be interesting to see how the US's torture session, I mean renditions, will be treated under IL

speaking of toilet paper, can you flick me a copy of your PhD, I need some more

supreme court justice scalia (USA) discussing torture and punishment:

4.45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnkVPy1DBW8&feature=related

And that's why until we have a world government, which it seems is what you're alluding to, realists like vadz and many others will continue to mock and belittle international law. I often find myself doing the same thing when a naive student seems to be stunned that a powerful state like the US will break international law when it is in its interests to do so.

I find it amusing that the political arguments on this forum often circle back to a dispute over the importance of sovereignty led by vadz versus international law led by bellamysgirl. Although you guys might find them repetitive I find them great reading that will be useful for me in the future It's good to have both sides of the debate clearly articulated and strongly argued.

The future of armed conflict is internal not international. Ergo world 1 is not plausible.

vadinho is in no way a realist. 'absolute sovereignty' of the kind that he advocates flies in the face of reality. he is better described as a marginal divorced-from-reality type thinker :>

he won't admit that the world is in a state of flux

i.e permanent evolution

Armed conflicts have ALWAYS been internal.
(Quantity rather than quality)

It's actually something I mention in my piece published in America.

However, entirely internal conflicts seldom lead to Holocausts. Rwanda was an exception.

Illegal is probably the wrong word. "Nice to have" would be suitable.
But the fact is that states ignore international law all the time.
I decided to go "old school" to my 5th form history teaching notes...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERlocarno.htm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/88736.htm

Just two examples.

There is one example of valid international law - "No country may interfere with the sovereignty of another state." This is a basic law whose existence is implicit in the doctrine of sovereignty (that is, we cannot have sovereignty without the existence of this law by logical derivation). Whereas none of the other "international laws" are a priori requirements of any concept!!

Sovereignty has always been accepted. Otherwise we wouldn't call them "coups d'etat" or "treason."
If rulers didn't have rights, then their toppling wouldn't be any more important than the price of bread.

State sovereignty was the culmination of human political thought. The 'withering of the state' of early Marxist thought was not an excuse for intervention, but rather an indication that the actual mechanisms of the state would alter form but not function.

I would suggest that the answer lies somewhere in the middle: international law is of greater binding force than the "realists" want to accept; and of somewhat less force than many international lawyers want to believe.

international law is probably one of the most misunderstood subjects in the world.

it has been observed that most states obey most rules of international law most of the time.

it's interesting to observe the reaction of the student who was shocked when the US broke international law. that should not shock anybody!

on the municipal level, people break domestic laws all of the time. plenty of times, without any legal consequence or punishment.

obedience to law does not define LAW. law is simply a body of rules and it can be argued that both human and state actors demonstrate "rule-abiding behaviour" - the willingness to follow or obey a set of rules. this is because there is frequently both a self-interest and a wider benefit to society or public interest in doing so.

the only difference between municipal law and international law is enforcement mechanisms. in the municipal system, there is the machinery of the state to punish rule-breakers. in the international system, punishment/enforcement is limited.

however significant progress is being made in this area with the establishment of such institutions as the International Criminal Court, etc.

citizens ignore various rules of municipal law all the time too, frequently without consequence.

once you accept that law exists independent of punishment, your mind will be freed.

if you think law is "rules backed up by guns" - well, I can argue jurisprudentially, that is a poor definition of "law."

Law requires the potential for enforcement
Law also requires a sovereign, overweening body

An agreement between equals is not "law".

if you accept the concept of state sovereignty, ipso facto you accept the concept of international law - the notion of state sovereignty, and that all states are equal as legal entities on the international plane, derives from international law.

the concept of sovereign equality (that it is impossible to have lesser or higher manifestations of sovereignty) relates to international law. "all sovereigns are equal" is an international legal principle.


indeed, the necessity of international law arises from the very existence of sovereign entities called states, and their need to have dealings with each other.

even if that is as basic as the carving up of physical territory and demarcation of borders - law is required.

why does law require the potential for enforcement to be "law?" how do you define "enforcement?" what types of enforcement are necessary to validate law? is a simple declaration of breach, for example, sufficient?

if equals agree that something is law, agree to be bound by it, and set out consequences for breach - why is that not sufficient to be law?

We disagree at a fundamental level here. To me, law requires someone with legitimate authority imposing their rules on those below them.

If all sovereign states are equal, then they cannot have real "law"; they can have voluntary agreements, sets of customs, but they cannot be regarded as law.

And yes, there is some international law, but it all boils down to respecting the sovereignty of other states, and as such is part of that principle itself.

And holocaust is our only concern in armed conflict? Holocaust and genocide are the big daddys vadinho, but don't forget that there is a host of war crimes and crimes against humanity which we need to aim to prevent. World 1 is not plausible.

You're an Austinian then - 'law is the command of a sovereign backed up by threats'. Why doesn't that surprise me. Austin, after all, was a soldier who then went on to study law.

That's actually wrong. Most states comply with most international law most of the time. Why? Well its obvious. Because international law is essentially law made by states for their own benefit, it follows that most of the time they will comply. Where international law is counter-productive to their agendas, states ignore it. This however in no way affects the validity of international law, but is a reflection of the fact that international law, by and large, has no effective enforcement mechanisms. That said, as JH has pointed out, progress is being made on the enforcement front. The Security Council has been quite active in the exercise of its coercive powers in recent years, then there is the ICJ, the ICC, in Europe the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights, all of which are influential institutions and all of which have impact on the conduct of states at the international and domestic level. This is a form of enforcement, although its not always coercive. And finally, the desire of most states not to injure friendly relations with other states, tends to drive them towards compliance with international law. That in itself is a form of enforcement, though again not necessarily coercive.

That's interesting, I've never thought of it like that. But then again I'm not a lawyer As a political studies student I tend to see law through the prism of power. Power relations always include an element of coercion. A dodgy person wouldn't pay their parking fines if there was no IRD to arrest them, and China would probably have attacked Taiwan by now if Taiwan was not protected by the US. The difference is the IRD is armed with legislation while Taiwan is armed with cutting-edge American weapons :> That to me is the most important difference between domestic and international law.

we do disagree at a fundamental level

if law has to be imposed from "above" on those "below" (by a sovereign on its subjects) then you must equally reject constitutional law and public law in the same way that you reject international law. none of these phenomena fits your narrow definition of "law."

from your point of view, the sovereign would never be able to bind itself through law - such laws would have to emanate from something "higher" than the sovereign - which is an impossibility.

you face another problem: when you complain that international law can not be regarded as law, you face the problem that everywhere states use the language of law! eg they have created international tribunals named "courts," there are international "crimes," treaties employ the same language and principles as private contracts, etc.

there are so many areas where international law mirrors municipal law conceptually and in terms of the language used.

it seems more accurate, then, to describe this system of rules as "law" than anything else. even states refer to it as "law!"

States cede their rights to non-intervention when they cause crimes that "shock the conscience of mankind".

I just wrote a 2000 word essay on whether humanitarian intervention should be legitimised.

Much to my dismay I actually think there are better arguments against humanitarian intervention than there are for it :/

don't worry - plenty of lawyers have never thought of it like that either!



all depends what school of thought you belong to.

There's a piece of international law that actually requires countries to intervene.

The Genocide Convention: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

Signed in 1948 it says that "genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."

power dynamics are highly relevant

and the coercive power of the state is vital to the enforcement of law, and I accept, much compliance with law at the municipal level

but imagine a society where there were laws, plenty of laws, but very little in the way of state prosecution as we know it. however, whenever a person broke the law, instead of prosecution and punishment, there was instead an announcement or declaration that he/she had broken the law of the land. and that such was widely disseminated/published to all in the land.

and suppose too that such a declaration carried great shame and stigma. that noone wanted to become known as a constant law-breaker because of the social consequences, the reputational consequences, and detriment to future dealings with others etc

well that's getting close to one of the primary ways in which the law of nations operates

But isn't their right to non-intervention really based on the power they have to prevent others from intervening? Serbia a relatively weak power begins ethnically cleansing Albanians from its territory. The West begins bombing Serbia in retaliation because it considers Serbia to be breaking international law. China, on the other hand, an emerging superpower, is able to violently suppress its population in Tibet without the West being able to do much except complain. And even Western criticisms have to be carefully worded because we fear Chinese economic retaliation, and that includes even the US (see Clinton's visit to China recently for evidence).

In short, for all the most important issues in IR, issues that deal with state survival and security, I don't see international law as playing an important role. However the majority of issues in IR do not impinge on these core areas. They are issues of controlling interstate commerce, regulating global finance, or stopping international human trafficking. In these non-core areas international law is an essential instrument of all states.

(As you can see I'm trying to take the best of both sides here

I agree with sebastian

international law has always been weakest in the highly politicised areas of state security and survival, armed conflict, etc

in these areas, states are more likely to pay lip service to international law at times, and disregard it entirely at other times.

(that is not to say that international law is entirely irrelevant to the above - just of more limited scope/effect)

in less politicised areas of state/inter-state activity, observance of international law is much greater - that is to be expected, because in these areas, there is a greater degree of agreement and cooperation (for mutual benefit)

I think I know what you're getting at, international norms right? I remember reading that China was so embarrassed at its support of Sudan just before the Olympics that it appointed a special envoy to try and help solve the conflict. Window dressing maybe but it shows the power that "reputation consequences" can have.

The problem is that when states have a huge amount of power, or people for that matter, I have little faith that norms will restrain them. The US after 9/11 is a good example. Or for an individual example look at Banimarama or Mugabe. Neither seem to give a shit about reputational consequences The influence of great shame and stigma seems to have no effect on even these very weak nations (so far anyway).

what I gave is a rough analogy/illustration only - more for vadinho's benefit really - to show another way that a system of laws can operate (in a self-regulating way, rather than a hierarchical way, imposing punishment from "above"

I agree - I don't think the shame or stigma for breaching an international norm is powerful enough to outweigh other factors in many cases

What I think is crucial to emphasize is the distinction between validity and enforcement. Selective or ineffective enforcement of or non-compliance with international law does not affect its validity.

also, if we criticise international law for its lack of restraining effect on illegal actions, we should criticise municipal law in the same way

criminal law has a poor restraining effect on individual behaviour - even the harshest punishments that the state can mete out do not deter plenty of people from committing serious crimes - because other factors such as emotion or self-interest dictate their actions

and a clever or lucky criminal may escape prosecution altogether

thank you for that succinct statement of what I have been trying to say in a very round-about way!

Its just another way of saying what you already said JH: 'once you accept that law exists independent of punishment, your mind will be freed'

Genocide Convention is not the only treaty that contains an obligation to prevent (Torture Convention and a number of other conventions dealing with transnational crimes) contain prevention obligations. But this does not entitle a state to forcibly enter another state to prevent genocide, in the absence of Security Council authorization (in other words, article of the UN Charter trumps the provisions of Genocide and these other conventions).

article 103 of the UN Charter that is.

That's just punishment by another name!
Don't try your legal Jedi mind tricks

SHAME is PUNISHMENT

Except isn't there some legal principle that a law that is never enforced is regarded as a nullity?

So, my next question
If a state refuses to sign any of these treaties - or pulls out of them - is it free to engage in ethnic cleansing?

hahahaha!

well-done!

then you have just agreed with me that international law is equal to municipal law - both provide for punishment, in different ways

thank you

no, not under modern international law

why would you want it to be otherwise?

? I never disputed any of the sort... hell the UN Charter demands collective military action against any state that engages in aggression. And I never denied that punishment SHOULD be given to states that engage in international aggression. if you want to call that international law, then fine

Explain to me how a state can be bound by a convention it isn't a signatory to? That completely contradicts your statement that international law is a voluntary abrogation of sovereign rights.

there are two types of international law - treaties and customary international law

states that have never objected to a rule of custom are taken to bound by it

No one said it was never enforced, just selectively.

And the Geneva Conventions, Genocide Convention, Torture Convention are all of customary status now, which means that non-party states are bound by them.

As they should be.

Sovereignty is not an absolute concept.

BG I was pretty sure this was the case - has there been any authoritative statement from the ICJ or similar body? how long have these laws had customary status?

I of course know that prohibition of torture is jus cogens and the Torture Convention simply sets out detailed enforcement mechanisms

i.e. torture would still be unlawful under international law even without the torture convention

There have been authoritative statements indeed. ICJ in Bosnia v Yugoslavia case on the Application of the Genocide Convention said that GC is customary law now.

The Geneva Conventions have been universally ratified. The Protocols (which relate to internal conflict) have not been but state practice indicates that they are by and large now customary as well - according to the ICRC.

ah yes I should have remembered the Bosnia case

If sovereignty isn't absolute, then theoretically any state can have its conduct interfered with at any time, for any reason?

Have you guys even READ Socrates - Crito?

Slippery slope arguments are for idiots.