Great Power Most Responsible for WW1?

[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?

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.

Thanks for that. 

I try and avoid making the emboldened argument, but it does have a certain forceful, ring of 'truth' about it.

[Neil]

Russia.  Then Austria.  Then France and Germany equally.

[Viking]

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.

Naval blockade's a bitch.

[Habbaku]

A war book written by a chick?

C. V. Wedgwood is one of the best historians of a couple wars.   

[Jacob]

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.

Very well put Malthus.

[derspiess]

A war book written by a chick?

C. V. Wedgwood is one of the best historians of a couple wars.   

Thanks, smart guy.

Trolling aside, I was just noting it was rare.

[Sheilbh]

C. V. Wedgwood is one of the best historians of a couple wars.   

A great writer.

[Eddie Teach]

Slavpologists make me sick btw.

Is this because Charles XII provoked the Russians into kicking Sweden's ass?

[The Brain]

Slavpologists make me sick btw.

Is this because Charles XII provoked the Russians into kicking Sweden's ass?

Elaborate.

[Eddie Teach]

That would require looking up more Swedish history. 

Well played, sir.

[The Brain]

I am pleased and annoyed.

[Eddie Teach]

Oh, one thing I just remembered- the original Rus were from Sweden. So you're kinda bad-mouthing your cousins. 

[The Brain]

Oh, one thing I just remembered- the original Rus were from Sweden. So you're kinda bad-mouthing your cousins. 

Rape-children of my cousins, maybe.

[Neil]

Austria and Russia also did a bad job of building dreadnoughts.

[Queequeg]

Oh, one thing I just remembered- the original Rus were from Sweden. So you're kinda bad-mouthing your cousins. 

Rape-children of my cousins, maybe.

I don't think we should judge entire ethnicities by fact that their ancestors were raped by Vikings. Most of western, central and eastern Europe was.