International Law

  • News
  • Thread starter AhmedEzz
  • Start date
  • #1
AhmedEzz

Main Question or Discussion Point

Hey guys I was wondering, is the international law mandatory or is it "more of a guidelines than actual rules" ?? What raised this question is that no one respects that law, and if it was actual rules, than why doesn't anyone get punished for it??
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
19,306
5,334
On paper, membership in the UN means you must follow applicable international laws. As a practical matter, the UN rarely enforces its own laws because in most cases, it doesn't have the power of enforcement except via war, nor a good mechanism for policing.
 
  • #3
Jordan Joab
As effective as a "Stop" sign at a street intersection.



Jordan Joab.
 
  • #4
Alfi
why doesn't anyone get punished for it??

Ask SadMan Insane.

Sometimes international law does work. Not as often as it should, but it's a young idea.
It needs work and support.
 
  • #5
AhmedEzz
but it's a young idea.
Is it?...

On paper, membership in the UN means you must follow applicable international laws. As a practical matter, the UN rarely enforces its own laws because in most cases, it doesn't have the power of enforcement except via war, nor a good mechanism for policing.
well, I think the least method of punishing would be using the media and announcing clearly the violator and the violator's actions and trying to create an international opinion and pressure on the matter until the violator stops violating the law and pay for the damage.

For example, the US Europe and China are responsible for global warming and climate change, the UN as an international organization should press those countries in every way to force them to reduce CO2 emissions - my info on this subject may not be entirely correct-.

I think its about the money, if the UN takes a little bit of an aggressive stance on these countries, their funding might lessen which will lead to the UN not being able to pay wages. I know the language sounds naive but I'm no expert on this.
 
  • #6
AhmedEzz
hmm, last I checked the factors that contributed the most to increasing the effects of global warming were all due to humans.
 
  • #7
Alfi
Is it?...



well, I think ........ but I'm no expert on this.
sorry- that's funny.


When we get into inter-planetary law, we may see the early 21st century as the beginnings of inter-national law.
 
  • #8
Evo
Mentor
23,106
2,458
Global warming due to humans is a hoax. Didn't you get the memo?
hmm, last I checked the factors that contributed the most to increasing the effects of global warming were all due to humans.
Neither of you are correct.

Global warming which is now called "climate change" is a natural part of the earth's ever changing climate, what you are thinking of is the dispute over how much man has contributed to the effects on climate.

China and India are both exempt from controls over C02 emmissions as part of the Kyoto protocal.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
AhmedEzz
Neither of you are correct.

Global warming which is now called "climate change" is a natural part of the earth's ever changing climate, what you are thinking of is the dispute over how much man has contributed to the effects on climate
I didn't claim humans controlled or started something, but we certainly helped quite alot...

Back to the topic, so what everyone here is saying is that international law is a lovely thing but it only exists in the perfect world we don't live in...How come the UN doesn't do anything to make sure that at least the law is considered let alone enforced?
 
  • #10
quadraphonics
Back to the topic, so what everyone here is saying is that international law is a lovely thing but it only exists in the perfect world we don't live in...How come the UN doesn't do anything to make sure that at least the law is considered let alone enforced?
Because the UN is simply the sum of its member states, none of which wants to be subjected to any law but their own, for the most part.

One way to clarify one's thinking about international law is to recall the famous quote from the Law & Order TV show: "man has only those rights he can defend." A corollary applicable to international law would be "the community of nations has only those international laws which it is willing and able to enforce." So, it's not an issue of some supranational body like the UN coming up with laws and then simply needing to do more to enforce them. The whole point is that the only source of international law is international consensus, backed by the willingness to use force. Where this occurs, there is international law. Where this is lacking, there is no international law.
 

Related Threads for: International Law

Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
Top