From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 10:35:17 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>>(Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>):
>>
>>Do you believe there is anything like "international law" or
>>that there should be? Do you believe that might makes right
>>between nations or is there some set of standards, whether you
>>call it "international law" or not, on which the actions of
>>nations in regards to one another should be judged?
>
>
> I think what John is expressing disdain for is the kind of
> international law exemplified by the UN, in which the sovereignty
> of dictators and tyrants is respected more than the human rights
> of the people they abuse, and with that I wholly concur. The
> standard of behavior among nations should be only this: that all
> nations must respect human rights; no more, no less. Respecting
> countries /as countries/ is irrelevant and counterproductive.
> And the single most important human right of all, without which
> no country can posibly claim any legitimacy, is freedom of speech.
> Freedom of speech and of the press should be a minimum requirement
> for any country to even be admitted at all into the international
> community.
>
I don't necessarily disagree with you but this was not what I
asked.
> So I will not brook any argument against war that begins with
> respect for Iraqi sovereignty. Arguments that such a war will
> not serve the interests of American or Iraqi people, however,
> are welcome.
>
Too bad. Some nations don't like the way various other nations
operate vis a vis their own people. But that does not by itself
justify acts of aggression today. Are you saying we have some
universal standards that allows any nations that want to at any
time to attack any other to purportedly uphold said standards?
If so, what are these standards and what if any rules govern
such actions?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST