Is international humanitarian law really law?

[geek tragedy]

Let's think about this. Law is something that must be obeyed. It is not optional, or hortatory, or aspirational.

If there are no consequences to flouting the law, then it's really not law but rather an advisory or statement of principle.

Bush committed an aggressive invasion of Iraq, tortured, etc. No consequences.

Saddam himself had tortured, used poison gas on multiple occasions against both enemies and domestic dissidents, and had twice committed aggressive invasions of his neighbors. And committed genocide and ecocide against the Marsh Arabs.

But, he remained in power buildling himself Presidential palaces. The sanctions that were put in place didn't hurt him at all.

Assad's regime has engaged in wholescale butchery in silencing its dissidents, now resorting to chemical weapons against civilians.

And there won't be any meaningful response from the world community. Pitiful handwringing from the UN, and perhaps some random cowboy missile attacks from the US that will only make the situation worse and won't do anything to actually hold Assad&Co responsible.

So, can we drop the pretense that international humanitarian law is still anything but victors' justice? That those who win wars, or at least avoid completely losing them, have no tangible reason to respect such law?


The real law is as it always has been: you can only torture, kill, and use poison gas against people who aren't stronger than you.

[jberryhill]

1. That's true of "International law" generally.

In that there is no mechanism of compulsion.

[geek tragedy]

2. For multilateral treaties governing commerce, trade etc there are.

Engage in protectionism, get slapped down by a transnational body.

I guess UN sanctions happen sometimes for stuff like invading your neighbors. But, meh.

[jberryhill]

3. And if they refuse to abide by the ruling of that international body?

Sure, there can be sanctions and so on, but there is no way to compel a sovereign entity to do diddly.

[geek tragedy]

6. The response is proportional and in kind.

That dynamic doesn't exist in armed conflict cases.

[Aerows]

4. If I get called a "peace purist"

by not wanting to get involved in the Syrian Civil War, then I'll call anyone that wants to get involved in it a "death purist" because somehow one form of dying (cruise missiles that also take out civilians and school children) is better than another.

Proceed, Death Purists.

[geek tragedy]

5. I'm presuming that military action by the US in Syria is unacceptable and

not capable of achieving anything.

Given that assumption, where does that leave us?

[Aerows]

7. As neither "Peace Purists"

Nor "Death Purists" that want to contribute to even more loss of life and destruction.

I think I am firmly neutral on this one, and abide by the idea that the more you stir in a mountain of shit, the more it stinks. It doesn't change the characteristics of the mountain you are stirring in, nor does it make you smell virtuous.