This is incredible incorrect.
No lol
The nature of international relations make it so that international law is hard politicized
Which does not indicate that what I said is wrong. The political is not necesserily biased, the political if a conflict of VALUE. In other word, yes, the nature of international LAWS can be hardcore politicized but because of their international nature, they are also most of the time unbiased.
Learn the difference between a bias and a value please.
First because those laws are more like agreements that countries can ratify in full, in part or even not sign(as a basic example the United States were never part of the League of Nations and so are under no obligation under international law to follow their rules)
Which is a problem.
You can't wish to be part of a word and not be taken accountable for what you are doing in it at the same time. That's a basic rule of conduct.
The US - like other country - will have to follow the rest a abide by international laws.
Second, because groups like ONU, International Court and others are more like a group of peers that arbitrate decisions and are usually paralyzed against those with high political and militar power.
As long as they are legimitated by the context of the world, those groups must be respected. EVEN if they don't have high political and militar power.
So I repeat : International laws MUST prevail. Simply because they are one of th foundation of the world harmony. Without that, we can say byebye to human rights all over the world.
What this means is that acting as if there's a single set of rules and a ruling body in international relations is amateurish at best and wrong 99% of the time.
And that's not what I did, but I'm use to discuss with people who don't read correctly.
While international law is actually effective (to the degree that international law can be) when dealing with economic disagreements and violations, when treating with military, political and humanitarian issues it is incredible difficult to reach an agreement and effective decisions.
Indeed. Spoiler Alert : Working together is hard.
There's a specific reason why proper annalists say something like ''under international law the actions of X group can be considered terrorist '' and not ''this group is terrorist under international law''.
Yes. And in those case, I will ALWAYS follow the international laws as they are - in the context of a free world - the most likely to be unbiased on the situation. I really don't want to hear the opinion of colonial countries such as France, Israel or USA.
their actions seem to violate regional and global International laws
Yes and they the prosecutor of the ICC asked an arrest warrent for some of its members. No one is denying the actions of Hamas here.
and they are considered terrorist by a number of countries
Which is again, isignificant in regard to international laws. Any kind of group of resistance against an oppressor can be considered terrorist so using the labels of colonials state to describe an armed resistance (however radical, foundamentalist it can be) even when said resistance has done - like the oppressor - War crimes - is not something that we must do.
To prosecute those people (Israeli or Hamas) for war crimes or crime against humanity, we must use international laws.
including dealing with accusations of UNWRA being in cahoots with Hamas
This is only a rumor, there are no actual evidences for this. In fact some country (like Italy for ex) just restarted to send ressources to UNWRA.
If you are arguing that Hamas is not a terrorist organization under the understanding of ONU
More under the ruling of the ICC and ICJ. The actual court that have a ruling power.
In resume, successfully arguing using international law (either in stricto or lato sensu) that Hamas isn't a terrorist organization is a incredible hard feat, since they did violate international treaties and conventions agreed by numerous states. Usually when entities or groups refuse to name Hamas as a terrorist organization is because of issues beyond the simple scope of law ( in this case many consider that the risk of making the fight of Palestinians illegitimate by association isn't worth naming Hamas as a terrorist group despite their actions).
In reality, you could also use that definition to define the gov of Israel as terrorist ALSO. As they are doing those exact things :
> This customary rule requires the following three key elements: (i) the perpetration of a criminal act (such as murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, arson, and so on), or threatening such an act; (ii) the intent to spread fear among the population (which would generally entail the creation of public danger) or directly or indirectly coerce a national or international authority to take some action, or to refrain from taking it; (iii) when the act involves a transnational element. ( Interlocutory Decision, 2011, para. 85).
You see how using this definition is actually quite a trap and not really usefull. The point is that if an element of an organization is qualified as terrorist, it can't be prosecuted as a war criminal criminal of crime against humanity and those sanction are much more important in term of impact.
Hamas is a armed radical resistant group involved in multiple war crimes and crime against humanity. The members involved must be brought to justice. Simple as that.
Basically, they see that there is a crime and make statements condemning the act but outside of that they do nothing (or redirect to treaties that allow economic sanctions and so on).
Again, International Relations and International Law is very political and not as simple as you may think.
No. it means literally ALL country. NO man or women in any country on earth is safe from being brought to justice in front of an international court. That's the power of international right.
The Member are those who legitimate this process, but the extent of the process surpass the limits of the group. The international laws apply for ALL country on earth. Without exceptions.
What you are saying is that the courts can't force anything on a country that is not a state member. And that's true. But that's why they issue arrest warrants in the case of said person leaves the country toward a state member.
Yeah you are justifying their killing because there is no other option than being a nazi and killing all the jews.
You have a problem of comprehension I think, are you projecting your desires here ?
She only lost because no abuse was proved.
Again, its was not a case about an abuser, it was a defammation case.
Not it doesn't. And even by your definition you are wrong since there are countries that disagree with you.
Well, spoiler, if Netanyahou leaves Israel, the state member might have to arrest his a*s
Their country are sovereigns. There is no global order to rule over a country.
Technically yes, there are.
People can't do what they want and expect no accountability. If you act like a monster, be prepared to be treated like one.
No one votes for the nazi leftists of UN to rule over the world
The Nazi leftist ? After all this time discussing with me, you still haven't understood the simple basic fact that Socialism and Nazism are complete opposites ? Do you have comprehension issues mate ?
Not the dictatorship Soviet Union you dream of.
You cringe bro
There are the good peaceful democratic countries and there are the bad aggressive dictatorships seeking war
Indeed, USA and Israel are seeking War, France doesn't want to stop helping ISrael or recognize Palestine and socialist countries such as Ireland, Norway and Spain are trying just recognized Palestine as a state and therefore made a step toward peace.
I see what you are saying. The gov of Israel, France and USA are indeed the problems.
