This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You are arguing that USA is innocent by default of its warmongering because it chooses to not accept the sovereignty of international courts. But if sovereignty is at the core of international law, then one nation's sovereignty to violate the sovereignty of other nations causes an obvious problem. This idea stretches to absurdity. If the USA decided to nuke the rest of the world tomorrow would that be in line with international rule of law as well?
Meanwhile, Bush signed a bill into law that gives the American president power to invade Netherlands if any American is found guilty of warcrimes, which raises the question if we are dealing with international law about sovereignity in general of USA using its power to get away with warcrimes. And American warmongering has often been done under the pretense that countries that consider themselves sovereign have somehow have behaved in an aggressive manner towards other countries or their leaders are tyrannical.
You seem to try to impose your own corrupt understanding on others. It isn't my idea but there is an objective criteria into which warcrimes, genocide, causing civil wars, can be defined and understood. Just like a drug lord who bought the goverment is still guilty of murder, bribery, engaging in the drug trade, principles of guilt are above American or any other nation's sovereignty, or even any decisions made by any international body. Either the USA or anyone is guilty of such actions or not. The point of the law is obviously to execute in practice without corruption such principles and find those who behave in a criminal manner, to be in fact in breach and then to be held accountable.
Obviously a drug lord, or his lawyer would like to argue that his conduct doesn't count as criminal. But it does count, whatever postmodernist irrational tricks, they would want to promote.
Else you don't have international rule of law. And obviously the very concept has always been limited by facts like the power of the biggest states, their veto in UN security council, etc. It always necessitates a certain restraint and reciprocal accountability. This means that today actually the rule of international law and international justice is in fact quite limited in practice. It doesn't mean that such limitations are the rule of international law. We just have a very limited rule of law.
Just like Mexico which has limited sovereignty and corrupted by drug lords, has a more limited application of the law against murder than other countries. In practice Mexico is more lawless and has less justice. It is against any interest of justice caring people to accept redefining it. We should not treat the current version of Mexico as representing a new understanding of law and justice. Nor should we treat the drug dealers who get away with it as behaving in a legitimate manner.
You are trying to stretch the semantics to introduce the opposite meaning into it when the point of international rule of law, especially when Globalist American empire warmongers always use it to justify aggressive action. And their argument always relates to states engaging in such criminal actions against other countries or claimed tyranny in their own borders.
The goal of the perspective you are promoting is for criminal actions to be found and exaggerated when it comes to other countries so there are excuses to justify aggressive action against other countries, but then somehow it doesn't count when it comes to the USA and Israel. This duality and the usefulness in one sided application, is why the concept is not disregarded entirely over a pure might is right perspective.
The one who is inconsistent here is you. The only consistent part about your agenda is that you are fully in favor of American and Israeli aggressive actions, including ones that utilize a narrative of violations of international law, or justice.
It is actually an Orwellian perspective that assaults the very concept of international law, and international justice that the rule of international law is about the sovereignty of USA and Israel to commit war crimes, genocide, and violate others sovereignty.
When it comes to maximalist partisanship for the American and Israeli establishments, it isn't a valid perspective that is going to be persuasive to those who aren't already partisan in the same manner. Even if you try to promote this maximalist partisanship for Globalist America Empire and Israel in a more indirect manner. It is still transparent enough.
Alas, international courts do not have sovereignty.
I will submit that this attempt to reach for a trumping buzzword is demonstrative of why you do not understand the argument being presented, or even the nature of international law.
This would be incorrect. My want is to highlight that your position is not based on international law, but the sort of selective and increasingly emotional appeals to international law that see it so often misused as a geopolitical cudgel.
In a few posts you have-
-Mis-identified the legal international bodies taking actions
-Mis-identified the legal actions taken by international bodies
-Mis-identified the conclusions of international bodies
-Mis-identified the legal basis for international bodies
-Mis-identified the legal limits of international bodies
-Mis-identified the legal responses to the actions of international bodies
-Mis-identified the legal implications of certain states not abiding by certain international bodies
-Mis-identified the provided legal basis of non-compliance with international bodies.
Upon correction, rather than even contest disputes by counter-citations, you have transitioned to ad hominem attacks that ignore the arguments provided.
This is not atypical of people with less interest in international law than in making strong claims about international law.
Except, of course, there are not objective criteria- hence why ICC claims jurisdiction over territory not a part of any ICC member despite the objective limitations of the ICC's jurisdictions under its own laws to its own members and their territory, and why the advocates of the case against Israel in the ICJ submitted alternative and broader definitions of genocide, rather than the older and more established forms.
Which is why textualism is so important for advocates of law. Acknowledging the limits of the law- what you deride as the loophole or innocence- is what protects against corrupt re-interpretations of law by taking items beyond their scope, or ignoring what is there.
By contrast, ignoring the text of what is or is not provided for in international law as convenient (or inconvenient) to advance your desires is the paradigm that leads to systemic abuse of the international law by powers that have more power to shape when and what sort of selective interpretations are advanced more often.
My encouragement for the audience is to consider whether Belisarius is making a legal argument on the nature and nuances of laws, or an emotional appeal more motivated by their geopolitical hostilities.
The House in the American congress passes International Criminal Court sanctions bill in response to Netanyahu warrant, to sanction International Criminal Court. So we see a clear desire to defy decisions made based on a legal understanding. Same appies to UN resolutions against Israel.
Even when the often zionist, neocon elite have been using the very authority of opposition to war crimes, criminal conduct to justify warmongering.
Your claim that you possess as superior textual understanding of international law that justifies your maximalist partisan perspective and its huge double standards is not convincing and is simply false.
But you are one of those who argue in favor of ignoring international law, by claiming that it doesn't constrain USA because of American sovereignty and the desire of Americans to not be constrained by it. Essentially there isn't any constrain of international law when it comes to American actions. Therefore this is a fallacious arguement because you are not interested in powers abusing international law. Although from your perspective international law means that USA and Israel are allowed to do as it pleases
So it is clear that your attempt to present your position helping us reach a point that great powers will not systematically abusing the law, is false. At best, you could claim you support what you call an international law that allows American and Israeli warcrimes.
This is projection.
If you were dealing with someone who pretended the Russians never didn't do nothing wrong there might be more equivalency in partisanship. I am actually interested in how the rule of international law can work better. And it isn't by excusing GAE and Israel actions and using the concept as a weapon against other countries.
It isn't geopolitical hostility that the USA and Israel have committed warcrimes but a part of reality.
It is geopolitical partisanship from your behalf that you aren't willing to acknowledge it and are even attacking those who do with false accusations of bad motives, because the facts are overwhelmingly against any claim that such actions haven't happened. Which is why you are trying to advance an argument that somehow it doesn't count.
I am even willing to acknowledge that it isn't only American power that provides limitations to the rule of international law. Of course a UN security council member and a nuclear power like Russia can get away with plenty. Even weaker powers can get away with international law violations through the willingness of greater powers to give them permission to act, based on their geopolitical interests.
This issue relates to the substance of the law in practice. I am sure Pablo Escobar's lawyer could be willing to come up with all sorts of excuses for why Pablo Escobar being allowed to have a stay in a prison designed by Pablo Escobar's specifications was fully legitimate and acceptable, because the Colombian authorities accepted it. I am rather completely disagreeing with your perspective that any rule of law exists where the substance of what ought to be prohibited, isn't followed. Which granted isn't your perspective alone, but central to the corruption of the rule of law in various societies by those who benefit in getting away with what the law is expected to prohibit, and in fact prohibits textually as well. This is the way to get away with corrupting a system, or to leave it corrupt.
There isn't any validity to the view that the opposition to the corruption of the law is irrationally emotional. There are irrationally emotional people, at least from the perspective of the common good, which is those who are emotionally invested in defending groups and organizations that corrupt a system. Escobar who I mentioned had his fanboys. In fact, criminality inspires rational opposition and strong feelings of anger in combination that are a superior response to passivity and giving a damn for what actually matters is how you avoid having your society corrupted by the Pablo Escobars of the world.
Same applies to the rule of International Law which actually exists in a very limited capacity, although I guess it could had been even more limited.
And the actions of the American congress against the international criminal court are part of what makes it limited. Granted, the nature of nation state sovereignty and the potential of political manipulation in the UN by various countries, or ideologues, makes things more complicated than a perspective that to get rule of international law we need to have states as fully subordinate of bodies like the UN.
But that doesn't change the fact that the USA and Israel are breaking all sorts of both textual rules on the books but also the rules as described by the people talking about war crimes, genocides, aggressive war and there is even precedent with trials towards leaders including in Serbia. These actions cannot just be washed away by claims of bias.
Trying to consistently apply at least some of the standards that the USA claims to care about in other countries and not threatening the international criminal court over its decisions towards Israel's warcrimes would be a move towards greater international justice and greater rule of international law. Of course, there is zero chance that the current establishment is going to do this.
Thank you for further demonstrating the points of my previous posts for the audience.
I am confident that me demonstrating in substance the core of the issue, and you claiming bias and subsequently declaring victory, is a divergence that I am happy to leave things at. I am content for both of us to declare victory with this differing approach.
Thank you for further demonstrating your habit of misrepresenting the position of others by insisting they make claims they have not made.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link