International law fiction
Telegraph Editorial:
...
"The most striking thing about this debate is its pointlessness. The 'legality' or otherwise of the war is a non-subject, for the simple reason that there is no binding body of international law which compels obedience, either in morality or in fact, from the sovereign nations of the globe.
...
"The most plausible view to take about the bulk of international law is that it is a very successful con-trick: a forged coin which many people have been duped into thinking is the real thing. The Americans have seen through the forgery, and wisely refused to sign up to the creation of The International Criminal court in 1998, judging that its procedures would almost certainly include an attempt by countries who resent American power to frustrate it.
...
"The invasion of Iraq may or may not have been 'illegal' under international law. The point, however, is that the whole issue of 'international legality' is a gigantic irrelevance. The only thing that counts in a democracy - and the only functioning democracies that exist are nation-states - is whether the people who elected the government support the war which their government has declared."
It should be pointed out that none of those who thought the war in Iraq was "illegal" have suggested restoring Saddam to power. If they did they would look like idiots, and if they do not they look like they are arguing a moot point.
Telegraph Editorial:
...
"The most striking thing about this debate is its pointlessness. The 'legality' or otherwise of the war is a non-subject, for the simple reason that there is no binding body of international law which compels obedience, either in morality or in fact, from the sovereign nations of the globe.
...
"The most plausible view to take about the bulk of international law is that it is a very successful con-trick: a forged coin which many people have been duped into thinking is the real thing. The Americans have seen through the forgery, and wisely refused to sign up to the creation of The International Criminal court in 1998, judging that its procedures would almost certainly include an attempt by countries who resent American power to frustrate it.
...
"The invasion of Iraq may or may not have been 'illegal' under international law. The point, however, is that the whole issue of 'international legality' is a gigantic irrelevance. The only thing that counts in a democracy - and the only functioning democracies that exist are nation-states - is whether the people who elected the government support the war which their government has declared."
It should be pointed out that none of those who thought the war in Iraq was "illegal" have suggested restoring Saddam to power. If they did they would look like idiots, and if they do not they look like they are arguing a moot point.
Comments
Post a Comment