"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified." Agree or Disagree?

Question

another political compass test question

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

Voted "strongly agree," though this not ought to suggest that military action ought be undertaken frivolously or easily. That said, international law is honored only in the breech. While it would be nice were the world so orderly, the truth is that the international arena is the realm of power, not principle. Of Machiavelli and not Mother Teresa.

Indeed, the following quotes define the world as it is:

From Theodore Roosevelt: "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."

From Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

From John Quincy Adams: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

From Camillo di Cavour: "Astonish them with my ingratitude." (His response when asked by a reporter what he would do for the Italian liberals who helped him unite Italy.)

From Victor Davis Hanson (paraphrasing Thucydides): "Power, not justice... is always the final arbiter of state relations; self-interest, not morality, is what guides and must guide the behavior of states. Appeals to mercy or hope for reprieve are misguided, not rooted in logic or a realistic understanding of human behavior."

... or to sum up, in the words of Machiavelli, "Lie down with the devil and achieve your goals."

We may wish the world were not so, and democracies - given their belief, rooted in the principles of the Enlightenment, in human goodness, the rule of law and the rationality of man - are especially so prone to belief it is not so. They have faith that law can lasso the energy of human power and ambition and restrain it to the common good, but history conclusively demonstrates otherwise.

Most famously, Hitler and Mussolini ignored international law. Chamberlain and Daladier relied upon it. World War II to follow. Indeed, it was because Woodrow Wilson, after World War I, sought to replace the global balance of power with a system based on international law, collective security, and a "parliament of man" that the stage was set for World War II.

The great powers adopted the forms of international law but not its substance. The "parliament of man," a. k. a. the League of Nations, became merely another arena where the contest of interests was played out. Indeed, as with the case of Japan in 1937, when it no longer served the national interests, the Japanese simply walked out.

This is not to say that international law has no value. It can work where it more or less conforms to broad national interests or where the great power are agreed and have the power to impose it on lesser powers who may not otherwise obey it.

However, at the end of the day, the power of law rests upon agreed upon moral and ethical principles. This international law does not have. It is, rather, a grand quid pro quo - "we won't do it to you, if you won't do it to us." It endures, to the extent it endures, because the states that abide by it choose to do so because it conforms to their national interests.

Where it conforms to such interests, it is invoked. Where not, it is brushed aside and there is no overriding common authority with the power to apply and enforce it - disinterestedly or otherwise, That being the case, no state would dare, in the global arena, dare relinquish its power, military or otherwise, to act. To do so being - as Czechoslovakia circa 1938 can attest - to national suicide.

HiveBee · Accepted Answer

I found out recently that some American soldiers after finding out the atrocities with the Jews in concentration camps in ww2 committed war crimes.

The military looked past those war crimes against German soldiers. The atrocities of the germans drove the American soldiers to retaliate illegally. Driven by the sheer shock of what horrible things the germans did.

I think it was fully justified andexcusable. 100%.

Daniela1982 · Accepted Answer

How can military action that kills civilians, including blacks, be justified yet if a cop kills a black all hell breaks loose?

purplepoppy · Accepted Answer

If you win it's justified. If you lose it's a war crime.

razelove · Answer

Who cares about international law? You have to agree to be beholden to it first. As long as you have a strong military and never sign treaties like NATO, Geneva, IAEA, so on and so forth, you can gas your enemies, light them on fire, hell, you can with those on the books, hire civilian contractors.

There is no international court unless it is convened because of genocide or something similar. To simply hire people to gas, burn, and have an ROE that kills everything down to the grass is pretty simple, often cheaper than formal military logistics and troop movements as well.

If you ever get caught, you're guilty of war crimes... in a country you're never going to return to, and are unlikely to be caught in, as you're tearing into them for pay from someone else. You just never go back to that country alone, or overthrow their government and execute everyone who was in charge to erase any ideas about who did what. That one might get an investigation from the Hague, so you need countries to overthrow themselves by and large. Or at least have the appearance of that happening. Those farmers and their C4...

Aethereal · Answer

Strongly disagree. It allows the aggressor to define what it believes is a justifiable reason whenever it wants to take military action (usually for its own interests). Allowing such behaviour just sets a dangerous precedent for others to also take military action in the same way. It renders international law worthless, because everyone may now be engaged in warfare for noble reasons that the rest just don't understand yet.

The world is however, very fortunate that many countries show restraint in the face of this dangerous precedent provided by certain other countries who like to invade others for their own "noble" reasons.

ChrisMaster69 · Answer

To a point, unfortunately international law is only followed by mainly Western countries and democracies, no one else really gives a fuck.

this means the likes of NATO are on the back foot from the start, also democracies allow demonstrations.

The Chinese could carpet bomb Hanoi or any other city and there would be zero public protesting.

also at the UN majority of actions will be vetoed etc.

you simply cannot wait for the UN to approve something, especially if it’s secret or has mission time against it.

The French and the UK will I put money on it, carry out cross border raids at some point while operating in Mali (Africa), however waiting for fuckwits in the UN to approve is pointless.

jgokgotit · Answer

The goal of the military of any nation is to protect its home nation's interests, not those of the entire world. There really are no such things as "international" laws. The things people mistake for international laws are actually just agreements and treaties that any nation can disregard at any time. To have international law, you would have to have a supreme ruler of the world, rather it be a person, a court or some other system. This is simply not a good idea because wherever this entity is physically located would be seen as being arrogant enough to believe they can rule the entire world. Nobody with any sense would accept that. International agreements and treaties are great peace keeping measures, but they are not really binding. However, any nation that does break them must be prepared for any retaliation that comes their way.

have_a_good_day · Answer

Ten years ago a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum-security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem... if no one else can help... and if you can find them... maybe you can hire... The A-Team.

DaveToo · Answer

I can't say one way or the other. There could be a situation that demands a unilateral response and immediate, for the protection of American and Allied lives.

On the other hand, any action taken has consequences on the world stage, and we would have to justify our actions in a world court.

Avicenna · Answer

Can you be a little more specific as to the circumstances of this hypothetical military action?

Agape93 · Answer

Nope. If I walked up and shot my ex, would it be objectively a good thing for the world? Yes. Am I justified? Yes. Is it legal? No. Would I end up in prison? Oh most definitely, unfortunately.

BCA6010 · Answer

"International law" is a joke. Only a handful of countries actually care about upholding such agreements, and only a few are even capable of attempting to enforce them.

Kaneki05 · Answer

Nah not realy. But maybe if it was to take out hitler or something. But we don't get many hitlers. More just small groups and trading wars so... Shrugs.

NathanDavis · Answer

Just sometimes, it is quite needed, by one side... so that nullifies the need for a <> justification, that's just how this stuff is.

pokerbot · Answer

I can't think of an instance where it would be justified. International law exists for a reason. If everyone complied with it, it would solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately it's not really a law if it can't be enforced.

Gwenhwyfar · Answer

In theory yes but such occasions would be rare. Comity is important.

Dargil · Answer

Was war on Japan justified after they attacked Pearl Harbor? Of course it was.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Why does one make agreements - only to find justifications to bypass them?

juliusgreye · Answer

Is it justified for me to break the law because it's in my own interest? No. Do people do it anyway? Oh, absolutely. The same applies to large groups of people like corporations and governments.

crmoore · Answer

Not to say that is had been, but it theoretically CAN be.

Anonymous · Answer

GOD Christ is above the dome would not recommend it

007kingifrit · Answer

no such thing as "international law"

karaspara · Answer

Agree to a point

NikolaiIvanov · Answer

Yes, strongly agree.

msc545 · Answer

Disagree.

wickhamhayls · Answer

No. It's not.

"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified." Agree or Disagree?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified." Agree or Disagree?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.