The Chilcot Inquiry

luka

Well-known member
Barty is like the new model droid, the terminator two version. Move aside droid you've been replaced
 

luka

Well-known member
i heavent heard from craner since a day or two before this report came out. im actually a bit worried. he hasnt been on facebook or on dissensus or even on his intagram account. no one has heard from him. actually a bit worried about him. hes held onto his support for the war so doggedly. in a way he staked his reputation on it. hes always used is real name online in a way the rest of us would never dream of doing. i hope hes ok and can finally admit to being wrong. i think we can all agree we would think no less of him were he to do that.
 

vimothy

yurp
barty, you are getting trounced. quite embaressing. vimothy, i dunno, you only speak in gnomic non sequiturs so i dont know how to judge your performance.

If aggression between states is to be outlawed and punished (for example by hanging those responsible), then obviously there must an authority capable of issuing laws encompassing that, determining whether states are guilty of transgressing the law, and punishing those who do so. That authority cannot possibly exist on a purely consensual basis - which is why the international system has historically been (basically) anarchy and international law was described as "the vanishing point of jurisprudence".
 

droid

Well-known member
If aggression between states is to be outlawed and punished (for example by hanging those responsible), then obviously there must an authority capable of issuing laws encompassing that, determining whether states are guilty of transgressing the law, and punishing those who do so. That authority cannot possibly exist on a purely consensual basis - which is why the international system has historically been (basically) anarchy and international law was described as "the vanishing point of jurisprudence".

Is it possible to police without breaking the law?
 

vimothy

yurp
The first definition google offers for coercion is, "the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."
 

vimothy

yurp
What's the distinction you're making here? States cannot be guaranteed to willingly give up their sovereignty, and there exists no entity other than states (or collections of states) for them to give it up to.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
Even if we were to agree on that definition, surely you could accept that threats or the use of force do not necessarily equal the Nazi invasion of Poland?
 

droid

Well-known member
So the distinction Im making is that it is possible to establish and apply international law through a variety of methods; consensus, persuasion, coercion, threats, use of force, financial, economic and trading instruments, appeals to self interest... all sorts of means which fall short of actual wars of aggression.
 

droid

Well-known member
And to go back to your original statement. It is possible to prevent aggression without being guilty of aggression - certainly in technical terms on the basis that military force used as an instrument of IL and approved by the UN, cannot, by definition be aggression - but also in practical and moral terms.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
It certainly doesn't seem possible, if history is any guide. But assuming that it is, international law (in the modern sense) is still the product of the dominant superpower, and formalises international relations under its aegis. It is grounded in the very real threat of violence - which is to say, interstate war - without which it would never have come into being, and without which its continued existence would be impossible. (Which is not to knock Pax Americana, but merely to be honest about what it is and how it is maintained.)
 

droid

Well-known member
On the contrary, the dominant superpower has prevented an effective multilateral system of IL from coming into being (as an explicit aim in fact) as much as it has guaranteed peace - and of course, Pax Americana is a Pax in Bello.
 

vimothy

yurp
"Perpetual war for perpetual peace". However, the only "multilateral system" possible is the status quo ante, i.e. classical international law, i.e., anarchy amongst sovereign states - from which there is no basis to forbid states from pursuing their interests through war, since there is no one who has that authority over the others.
 
Top