The Obama "To Make Important Middle East Speech" MEGATHREAD

[OttoVonBismarck]

There is law enforcement in states but not between states, and that means you can break international law all you want! Awesome!

Exactly, see the word "want" in your sentence? That's precisely the case, and precisely how it tends to go down, too. Sometimes the international response can compel a change in behavior sans military action, but if not, and if the international community is not willing to respond militarily, then it isn't any kind of law that matters. Laws on paper or treaties signed with fancy $500 pens aren't worth a damn if they don't have real force backing them up.

If you want a happy relationship with the international community you shouldn't just ignore treaties you sign, political agreements, standing international arrangements and etc. It's no different than two businesses that enter into a contract, if one business has a reputation for not holding up its end of its contractual obligations people will be less willing to do business with that company. That's regardless of the fact that you can sue another corporation for breach of contract--if I'm a business person I don't want to have to sue people to get them to hold up their end of our agreements and if I have reason to suspect a company is prone to behaving that way I'd just as soon not do business with them at all. So a country that flagrantly ignores international treaties can find it hard to operate on a range of issues.

So I don't think you should want to ignore international law, but if a country does, the only thing that can change the situation is military force. The police are willing to arrest criminals pretty much universally, the international community is not willing to turn international law into that rigorous form legal system.

[jimmy olsen]

FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.)

Why?

[Pat]

There is law enforcement in states but not between states, and that means you can break international law all you want! Awesome!

Exactly, see the word "want" in your sentence? That's precisely the case, and precisely how it tends to go down, too. Sometimes the international response can compel a change in behavior sans military action, but if not, and if the international community is not willing to respond militarily, then it isn't any kind of law that matters. Laws on paper or treaties signed with fancy $500 pens aren't worth a damn if they don't have real force backing them up.

If you want a happy relationship with the international community you shouldn't just ignore treaties you sign, political agreements, standing international arrangements and etc. It's no different than two businesses that enter into a contract, if one business has a reputation for not holding up its end of its contractual obligations people will be less willing to do business with that company. That's regardless of the fact that you can sue another corporation for breach of contract--if I'm a business person I don't want to have to sue people to get them to hold up their end of our agreements and if I have reason to suspect a company is prone to behaving that way I'd just as soon not do business with them at all. So a country that flagrantly ignores international treaties can find it hard to operate on a range of issues.

So I don't think you should want to ignore international law, but if a country does, the only thing that can change the situation is military force. The police are willing to arrest criminals pretty much universally, the international community is not willing to turn international law into that rigorous form legal system.

International law is a standing international arrangement, stemming from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, indeed no different from two businessmen entering into contract, or those contracts arising from concludent action (i.e. from acting as though there is a contract, not sure it's the correct term in English). If there is some part of the international law you don't like, you can always object to that part, and you won't be considered bound by it, as long as you are a persistant objector. But if you don't you're considered bound by it just as everyone else and other states can use various means to their disposal (not just military) to respond to breaches, if they so like. But of course it works just fine most of the time anyway and only a few countries that are taken seriously make a habit out of breaking it. As you rightly note, this is because countries generally care about their reputation.

[Warspite]

Exactly. And if you hold on to the territory long enough it becomes a core province. 

This is why I think all this babble over the borders of 1967 is vile bording on evil. The mere idea that if you just avoid negotiating a final status agreement that you can turn a ceasefire line into a border makes ceasefires impossible in the future.

Not really.

Any side which considers itself stronger will fight until they have reached all their goals, any side which has been defeated will refuse to concede on the grounds that nothing can be gained by negotiating.

Despite your assertion above, the historical record does not in fact indicate that factions are willing to fight to their final annihilation in order to reach their goals, and a number of civil wars for example have ended despite unfavourable ceasefire lines. War ends when the political will to continue dries up, that may or may not have much to do with whether a ceasefire line becomes a border.

Tell the Israelis and Arabs of 1948 that the green line is either going to be THE BORDER or THE BASIS FOR THE BORDER means that the fighting doesn't stop.

No, the principle is, 'what you hold, you keep, if you can defend', like most other conflicts. The reason that Arab states have kept the issue alive is because they can do so pretty much costlessly and it in fact suited them politically.

By the way, the fighting stopped in Bosnia despite the fact that the Dayton Peace Accord is pretty much, with some minor adjustments, the autumn ceasefire line.

I don't understand why the idiot politicians of today don't understand this.

Probably exposure to political realities.

[Razgovory]

FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.)

Why?

They are a lot like Protestants.  Something Muslims and Protestants both recognized early on.

[Viking]

This is why I think all this babble over the borders of 1967 is vile bording on evil. The mere idea that if you just avoid negotiating a final status agreement that you can turn a ceasefire line into a border makes ceasefires impossible in the future.

Not really.

Oh well...

Any side which considers itself stronger will fight until they have reached all their goals, any side which has been defeated will refuse to concede on the grounds that nothing can be gained by negotiating.

Despite your assertion above, the historical record does not in fact indicate that factions are willing to fight to their final annihilation in order to reach their goals, and a number of civil wars for example have ended despite unfavourable ceasefire lines. War ends when the political will to continue dries up, that may or may not have much to do with whether a ceasefire line becomes a border.

Final annihilation is no longer as likely an option in a world with humanitarian interventions. Lybia is an example of that. Ceasefire lines are easy to agree on the grounds that they are not the final borders.

Tell the Israelis and Arabs of 1948 that the green line is either going to be THE BORDER or THE BASIS FOR THE BORDER means that the fighting doesn't stop.

No, the principle is, 'what you hold, you keep, if you can defend', like most other conflicts. The reason that Arab states have kept the issue alive is because they can do so pretty much costlessly and it in fact suited them politically.

By the way, the fighting stopped in Bosnia despite the fact that the Dayton Peace Accord is pretty much, with some minor adjustments, the autumn ceasefire line.

Your attachment to that conflict might cause you to deal with the conflict in a partisan way. The 1995 bosnian and croatian offensive was completely successfull and it stopped (presumably at the US's requirement) at the line the US then demanded that the Serbs accepted. But, more importantly, the ceasefire agreement calls for a final peace that unifies the country, which is what is happening. The Republika Srpska is just merely a temporary entity.

I don't understand why the idiot politicians of today don't understand this.

Probably exposure to political realities.

That is probably the best explanation. Had Israel been "popular" then political realities would be different. That is a fundamentally corrupt attitude in my view.

[jimmy olsen]

FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.)

Why?

They are a lot like Protestants.  Something Muslims and Protestants both recognized early on.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Caliga]

 

I remember hearing once that Martin Luther read a translation of the Koran and went on to write a violently anti-Muslim response to it.

[Razgovory]

FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.)

Why?

They are a lot like Protestants.  Something Muslims and Protestants both recognized early on.

Can you elaborate on that?

Use of personal interpretations, tendency towards literalism, iconoclastic, were at war with Catholics, etc.  The belief in a set of codes that inform all personal actions is seen both in Reformed theology and Sunni Islam.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BjC7K1j_AT8C&pg=PA208&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Bluebook]

International law is a standing international arrangement, stemming from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, indeed no different from two businessmen entering into contract, or those contracts arising from concludent action (i.e. from acting as though there is a contract, not sure it's the correct term in English).

Except in a business relationship you can always go to court or to arbitration in case you disagree on something or in case one of the parties fail to meet its side of the agreement. That is not possible in international relations.

If there is some part of the international law you don't like, you can always object to that part, and you won't be considered bound by it, as long as you are a persistant objector.

Oh really? What about Iran and the non-proliferation-treaty? If I understand things correctly, there are some parts of "international law" that all states are bound to, no matter if they want to or not. That is what Nurnberg taught us.

[The Brain]

Oh really? What about Iran and the non-proliferation-treaty? If I understand things correctly, there are some parts of "international law" that all states are bound to, no matter if they want to or not. That is what Nurnberg taught us.

What about Iran and the NPT? They have signed it.

[Bluebook]

What about Iran and the NPT? They have signed it.

They have? When?

[The Brain]

What about Iran and the NPT? They have signed it.

They have? When?

I don't know.

[Viking]

What about Iran and the NPT? They have signed it.

They have? When?

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, that is why the Russians have been helping them with civil nuclear power generation at Busheir.

[Bluebook]

Oh well, good thing Im not a lawyer then.

However, I believe my point still stands, all states are bount by certain parts of "international law", regardless wether they want to or not.