Great Power Most Responsible for WW1?

[Viking]

Cause Germany did?

They did when the gun was to their head, and then they didn't when allowed to make a free choice.  Coerced agreements are not part of the rule of law.

Yeah, cause, y'know, history. That argument renders every single peace agreement illegal.

[crazy canuck]

If one wishes to look to the treaties to determine a "legal" answer to who is responsible for the war then one encounters an issue regarding certainty.  It turns out that each of the treaties found a different nation responsible.

We have already discussed the Treaty of Versailles.  But what about

Article 117 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye: "... Austria accepts the responsibility of Austria and her Allies for causing the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Austria-Hungary and her Allies".[2] Article 161 of the Treaty of Trianon: "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Hungary accepts the responsibility of Hungary and her allies for causing the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Austria-Hungary and her allies."[3] Article 121 of the Treaty Areas of Neuilly-sur-Seine: "Bulgaria recognises that, by joining in the war of aggression which Germany and Austria-Hungary waged against the Allied and Associated Powers, she has caused to the latter losses and sacrifices of all kinds, for which she ought to make complete reparation".[4] Article 231 of the Treaty of Sevres: "Turkey recognises that by joining in the war of aggression which Germany and Austria-Hungary waged against the Allied Powers she has caused to the latter losses and sacrifices of all kinds for which she ought to make complete reparation."[5]

[Zanza]

The much shorter treaty of Brest-Litovsk has no similar clause.

[Malthus]

The real problem here is treating "international law" in matters of war and peace as if it was anything like "law" as is understood in a Western domestic context - as part of something known as "the rule of law".

"International law" has none of the characteristics associated with "the rule of law". The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the law is itself a source of authority that prevents (or at least attempts to prevent) the arbitrary, self-serving abuse of power.

"International law" is, at best, "rule by law" (as opposed to rule of law), meaning that it is the device by which those who have power express and enforce it. The Treaty of Versailles making Germany accept 'the blame' is a perfect example of this. Germany accepted 'the blame' because Germany lost the battles, not because some impartial legal process objectively judged Germany to be guilty, like a court. If Germany had won the battles, it would be the Allies accepting 'the blame'.

[The Brain]

Finally the discussion is about law stuff instead of the interesting issue.

[Malthus]

Finally the discussion is about law stuff instead of the interesting issue.

[Valmy]

The much shorter treaty of Brest-Litovsk has no similar clause.

After listing all the territory they wanted ceded the Germans ran out of ink.

[Malthus]

The much shorter treaty of Brest-Litovsk has no similar clause.

Yeah, well, both sides still had to deal with the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk. That concentrates the mind. 

[mongers]

The real problem here is treating "international law" in matters of war and peace as if it was anything like "law" as is understood in a Western domestic context - as part of something known as "the rule of law".

"International law" has none of the characteristics associated with "the rule of law". The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the law is itself a source of authority that prevents (or at least attempts to prevent) the arbitrary, self-serving abuse of power.

"International law" is, at best, "rule by law" (as opposed to rule of law), meaning that it is the device by which those who have power express and enforce it. The Treaty of Versailles making Germany accept 'the blame' is a perfect example of this. Germany accepted 'the blame' because Germany lost the battles, not because some impartial legal process objectively judged Germany to be guilty, like a court. If Germany had won the battles, it would be the Allies accepting 'the blame'.

How does this undersstanding influence your view on the Nuremberg trials and subsequent developments in international humanitarian law?

[The Brain]

The Nuremberg trials were great. The victors were masters of the show trial.

[Admiral Yi]

The Nuremberg trials were an effort by the victors to subject their own actions towards the defeated to limitations.  No one can seriously argue that punishing high ranking Nazis by diktat would have been a preferable outcome.

[The Brain]

Too bad Hitler was innocent.

[Malthus]

The real problem here is treating "international law" in matters of war and peace as if it was anything like "law" as is understood in a Western domestic context - as part of something known as "the rule of law".

"International law" has none of the characteristics associated with "the rule of law". The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the law is itself a source of authority that prevents (or at least attempts to prevent) the arbitrary, self-serving abuse of power.

"International law" is, at best, "rule by law" (as opposed to rule of law), meaning that it is the device by which those who have power express and enforce it. The Treaty of Versailles making Germany accept 'the blame' is a perfect example of this. Germany accepted 'the blame' because Germany lost the battles, not because some impartial legal process objectively judged Germany to be guilty, like a court. If Germany had won the battles, it would be the Allies accepting 'the blame'.

How does this undersstanding influence your view on the Nuremberg trials and subsequent developments in international humanitarian law?

Doesn't directly deal with the law of peace and war. Those "laws" deal with matters on the national level - treaties, alliances and the like.

There are plenty of aspects of "international law" which the major nations are happy to have work more or less like the "rule of law", because it suits them - except for when it doesn't.

The Nuremberg trials were an example of that. I'm not fussed about any alleged "injustice" done to the Nazis, because they obviously had it comming, and the trials themselves worked like real trials, with evidence and stuff. However, just as obviously, some of the victors were just as guilty - such as the Soviets - and they were there as judges, not as defendants. So the trials worked like real trials, only the only actual defendants were those who had lost, and the trials only occurred because it suited the winners. 

International humanitarian law has continued this tradition. It is a threat to the powerless, and a sometimes-pawn to be used for propaganda - which doesn't mean for a second that some of the defendants are not guilty and deserving of punishment, or that the trials themselves are rigged. Only it doesn't have the effect desired by the "rule of law" - namely, to restrain the powerful. 

[grumbler]

Yeah, cause, y'know, history. That argument renders every single peace agreement illegal.

No, of course it doesn't.  Treaties can be imposed as a result of an unconditional surrender, for instance, and can be agreed to by the parties.  When one side agrees to peace under one set of conditions, complies with their obligations, and then is forced to sign a completely different treaty than they agreed to or face the opponents' threat of perfidy, then a treaty isn't binding on the compelled party.

[Malthus]

Yeah, cause, y'know, history. That argument renders every single peace agreement illegal.

No, of course it doesn't.  Treaties can be imposed as a result of an unconditional surrender, for instance, and can be agreed to by the parties.  When one side agrees to peace under one set of conditions, complies with their obligations, and then is forced to sign a completely different treaty than they agreed to or face the opponents' threat of perfidy, then a treaty isn't binding on the compelled party.

What does "not binding" mean in this context?