We're watching TWO genocidal invasions take place in real time. Why the fuck do we have international bodies. Why can't there be REAL PENALTIES for doing shit like this. It can't be that we all just WATCH and some of the assholes get in trouble later.
@StillIRise1963 The mechanism that could stop atrocities sooner rather than later is the Security Council at the UN. But as I'm sure everyone knows, it has been corrupted by Russia, China and the US. The three nations that consistently block any action to prevent atrocities. There is no other mechanism of the world bodies.
@StillIRise1963 No basically there is nothing. Countries of the world agree to be bound by conventions and treaties. But there's no "international police" that have the authority to do anything to a sovereign state. This is why punishment comes later, when there is enough willingness to turn folks over for prosecution to the International Criminal Court, which by the way, we are not a member of...
@StillIRise1963 The warmongers have not advanced much in terms of respect for human life. Even after WWII, few countries wanted an institution that could seriously impact their sovereignty.
@Mary625@StillIRise1963 Nothing can happen at the moment. But that does not mean nothing will ever happen. The mechanism of law runs its own course and it is never fast. It took 10 years for the International Court of Justice to rule on the case Bosnia brought against Serbia for the genocide of Bosnian Muslim men. The ICTY got criminal convictions but they had to wait for the fighting to end.
Edit: grammar
I get what you're talking about but even if something happens, nothing will change. We've proven that no one is held to any international law. Certainly not us. Not even our own laws. After all, "we tortured some folks."
I have lost all faith in humanity ruling anything. Sorry to be such a downer. I'm just... Numb I guess
@Mary625@StillIRise1963 What you are saying is not true. People are and have been held accountable across many countries. It is still hard to get accountability on the former colonial powers, but people are chipping away at that too. The big powers do not sign most treaties and when they do, there are reservations and exceptions. International accountability is through consensus and it takes a long time to build consensus.
edit: spelling
@Mary625@StillIRise1963 So I used to get paid to teach a 14 week course on this topic. I am not going to try and educate you in 500 words. However you can educate yourself by going to the following sites: https://www.icc-cpi.int/; https://www.icty.org/; https://unictr.irmct.org/.
Have humans stopped killing each other? No. But it is no longer permissible to claim to have the right to kill whomever you want, whenever you want. That is progress whether you like it or not.
@fulanigirl@Mary625@StillIRise1963 (Like, one thing I will always say is that I think things like the UN and ICC are probably the best ideas ever geopolitically - ones I actively support as long as a state-based international order exists, because ideally used correctly they would mitigate some of its worst harms - their worst downside is that enforcing their resolutions and rulings, especially against some of the worst actors like the US or Russia, is often entirely impossible.)
@mybarkingdogs@Mary625@StillIRise1963 Exactly right. But things would be way worse if they didn't exist. And I disagree that no change has been accomplished. The indicted at ICC were prosecuted. Some were acquitted but that is how a trial works. And the victims have had some relief. Countries do still claim the right to kill but their right is not legitimate like it used to be. International norms take literally like 100 years to stabilize and be accepted. We make small forward movement.
I appreciate the conversation. I'm fairly familiar with the ICC. I believe they're trying to change things but I don't see that they have. So many that were indicted were acquitted or let off the hook in some way or another.
Countries and people are claiming their rights to kill each other as we speak
I'm glad they exist but too many nations pay no attention to them.
@fulanigirl@StillIRise1963 more data: There are five 'permanent members' of the UN Security Council: Russia, China, the US, the UK, and France. All of these five have a unilateral veto power. The veto is widely held to be the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The US issued 56% of all vetoes between 1970 and 1991, then Russia became the most common user. As of May 2022, Russia/USSR has used its veto 121 times, the US 82 times, the UK 29 times, China 17 times, and France 16 times. The UK and France have not used it since 1989.
@zakalwe@StillIRise1963 Yep. This was a structural problem that was embedded at the end of WWII when the United Nations was formed. The General Assembly of the UN has been discussing this problem for many years now, but there isn't an easily identified solution since the UN Charter itself (which is a treaty) created the Security Council structure. It is quite a problem.
Honestly my answer would be, first of all, remove the veto.
And then there is Ukraine's challenge as to whether the Russian Federation is actually the LEGITIMATE inheritor of the USSR's permanent seat. I would argue it is not.
And I think there's a strong case that we should eliminate the permanent seats, PERIOD.
@zakalwe@StillIRise1963 Your arguments are not unreasonable but the Charter would need to be amended to do that. And THAT would be a 10 year process!!! You'd have to get a large majority of the members to agree. And it raises all kinds of scary problems like what if the majority of members will not agree...what happens then? And what pressures would the 800lb guerillas put on their dependent allies to reject changes? It is quite complicated.
@fulanigirl@StillIRise1963
The UN only exists because it has been corrupted by the veto holders. If there were no veto, they wouldn't have been a part of it and nor would their allies who depend on those vetoes.
@stewartvm@StillIRise1963 That is not historically true. Efforts to create an international body started with the League of Nations (1920). If you mean during the negotiations for UN Charter, the colonial nations were worried about retaining power over the subordinated, then that is true. Whether the UN would have looked different today is anyone's guess. But you cannot remove the historical context of colonialism from the creation of the UN.
@StillIRise1963 great questions, I wonder the same. I can say for certain the specter of "One World Government" is something that makes a lot of people around the world really anxious. Looking at the actions of the world right now, it makes you wonder if it wouldn't be better.
Add comment