International law is a fucking joke

“International law” is really just treaties and bureaucracy. For it to have consistent effect it would need to be materially backed by interests ensuring such an institution. It does not. So, instead, it reflects actual geopolitical power imbalances and inconsustent application.

But, and this is the most important part, oppressing countries not only still participate in it, but try to prop up the farce that it is a legitimate deliberative institution. The UN is maintained for PR value, it is a fig leaf. If you can use it to claim your genocidal war is legal, you can put that in your internal propaganda apparatus. When you can’t, well, then you see alternative PR terms being invented to give the same impression lije, “rules-based international order”, which is something that sounds like a reference to international law, but isn’t and can’t be, because the people using the term are actively breaking the relevant international law agreements.

European countries largely do nothing because they are fellow white supremacist US lapdogs feeding from the same teet of global exploitation creared through US-dominated imperialism. And “Israel” is a key player in that domination in the MENA region, helping to destabilize any sovereign action that doesn’t submit to US interests. Supposed European liberal ideals have never been consistently applied, they have been applied on colonial and racial lines since they went the colonial path hundreds of years ago.

Wilhoit’s Law again - international law exists to protect, but not bind, the imperial core and its proxies. International law also exists to bind, but not protect, imperial enemies.

I think we’re very close to another Kent State Massacre, but I doubt the outrage will be even a fraction of what it was last time.

Laws for thee but not for me.

I think there needs to be a concerted effort to call into question the legitimacy of governments that are failing to uphold treaties that have been ratified by their predecessors.

Australia has ratified the genocide prevention convention enshrining it in Australian law and our government is directly in contravention of that law. That makes the entire government a farce.

Every politician should be asked if they would arrest bibi and send him to the Hague. Anyone who says no has no respect for existing laws and that fact should be put on blast.

That is the usual hypocrisy of the Western European diaspora in general. They oppose the rule of law and human rights that they accused other countries of commiting. That is why Donald Trump’s attempts to break relationship with the Western countries could contribute more to international human rights than his predecessors.

Despite the importance of the UN in international law, it is in no real way a superordinate authority, and therefore there is no monopoly of legitimate coercion and hence interpretation internationally. The only bodies able to provide the necessary coercion for international law are the subjects of that law themselves, the states. Given the extraordinary disparities of power between those states, and given that the real content of the legal regulation will be the struggle between them, it is no wonder that materially effective international law, as opposed to the high phrases and noble interpretations of the idealists, has favoured the stronger states and their clients.

International law is a relationship and a process: it is not a fixed set of rules but a way of deciding the rules . And the coercion of at least one of the players, or its threat, is necessary as the medium by which particular contents will actualise the broader content of competitive struggle within the legal form.

– China Miéville, Between Equal Rights, p.151.

There’s no absolute law regarding friendly fire. US didn’t fight back against two jets attacking USS Liberty.

international law has always been might makes right

:shockedpikachu

israel: “hey…that sounds like a cool idea!”