“International law” was only ever used to harm the US.
The Iraq War was a violation of international law. Would it have harmed the US to follow or violate international law in that instance?
They only follow international law when it harms your country, but that's a different issue.
“You want to punish illegal immigrants for forcing a border which is a killable offense in literally any other context? Sorry, international law says that if they say the magic word asylum you must instead pay for their existence for years and then pay millions in legal fees to deport them!”
Most of this is just domestic laws, and even the right to asylum is just a treaty. Treaties can be repudiated. You might wonder why they're not when they damage your country.
Most of this is just domestic laws, and even the right to asylum is just a treaty.
The basis of all laws are treaties. You don’t get the domestic law on refugees from no basis. Every single adopted refugee and asylum law are directly taken by UN conventions. There is no legal definition of a refugee without the 1951 UN convention. It is the entire legal framework for every domestic law on the matter.
The Iraq War was a violation of international law. Would it have harmed the US to follow or violate international law in that instance?
No it wasn’t. In fact aside from lazy posturing by the UN there was no actual actions taken. The UN Security Council did jack shit. If you can show one actual action taken by the UN other than words I’d love to see it.
The basis of all laws are treaties. You don’t get the domestic law on refugees from no basis.
Of course you do. There have been refugees for as long as there have been states. I would be very surprised if there were no laws at all before the international conventions.
Every single adopted refugee and asylum law are directly taken by UN conventions. There is no legal definition of a refugee without the 1951 UN convention. It is the entire legal framework for every domestic law on the matter.
First of all, I don't at all disagree with you that the refugee treaty is bad, because I believe that there should be 0 refugees - at least from culturally incompatible countries. But it in no way requires what you said is justified under it. These are all domestic laws, and in a dualistic legal system, implementation laws go above treaties.
No it wasn’t. In fact aside from lazy posturing by the UN there was no actual actions taken. The UN Security Council did jack shit. If you can show one actual action taken by the UN other than words I’d love to see it.
The Security Council doesn't make wars illegal, it makes wars legal by authorizing them. Wars not waged in self-defense are presumptively illegal under international law. It's like saying that the police trying to get a warrant to raid your house, failing, but doing so anyway is not illegal because the judge who refused the warrant did "jackshit" about it. That's not his job. (This is leaving aside that the US has a veto and would be a judge in its own case.)
Furthermore, if the standard for a violation of international law is "the Security Council doing something about it", then you cannot simultanouelsy argue that not letting in unlimited refugees is a violation - as the same is true there.
I'm not arguing that you should like international law, although I think that its prohibition on wars of aggression is generally good, but if you hate it you should hate it for the right reasons.
Of course you do. There have been refugees for as long as there have been states. I would be very surprised if there were no laws at all before the international conventions.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
But it in no way requires what you said is justified under it. These are all domestic laws, and in a dualistic legal system, implementation laws go above treaties.
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis. Again domestic laws require a basis, the UN convention is that basis. If the US left the UN tomorrow those domestic laws become voided.
The Security Council doesn't make wars illegal, it makes wars legal by authorizing them. Wars not waged in self-defense are presumptively illegal under international law. It's like saying that the police trying to get a warrant to raid your house, failing, but doing so anyway is not illegal because the judge who refused the warrant did "jackshit" about it. That's not his job. (This is leaving aside that the US has a veto and would be a judge in its own case.)
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter. Your analogy is horrendous, this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
You do know how many refugees there were from Belgium and Spain before WW2?
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis
They don't "need" that legal basis. You can make such laws in absence of any treaty.
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter.
You're very confused. Self-defense requires an imminent threat and does not require Security Council authorization, nor was there any attempt to make it rule for this to be a "refusal".
Your analogy is horrendous,
Then show it to be that.
this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
It's based on your own claims. And no, being laughed out of court because your lies are so transparent doesn't justify either a raid or a war.
Sadam had repeatedly violated the Treaty of Bagdahd following the first Gulf War. Regardless of the idiot justifications of Bush the Younger, invading him was legitimate.
The Iraq War was a violation of international law. Would it have harmed the US to follow or violate international law in that instance?
They only follow international law when it harms your country, but that's a different issue.
Most of this is just domestic laws, and even the right to asylum is just a treaty. Treaties can be repudiated. You might wonder why they're not when they damage your country.
The basis of all laws are treaties. You don’t get the domestic law on refugees from no basis. Every single adopted refugee and asylum law are directly taken by UN conventions. There is no legal definition of a refugee without the 1951 UN convention. It is the entire legal framework for every domestic law on the matter.
No it wasn’t. In fact aside from lazy posturing by the UN there was no actual actions taken. The UN Security Council did jack shit. If you can show one actual action taken by the UN other than words I’d love to see it.
Of course you do. There have been refugees for as long as there have been states. I would be very surprised if there were no laws at all before the international conventions.
First of all, I don't at all disagree with you that the refugee treaty is bad, because I believe that there should be 0 refugees - at least from culturally incompatible countries. But it in no way requires what you said is justified under it. These are all domestic laws, and in a dualistic legal system, implementation laws go above treaties.
The Security Council doesn't make wars illegal, it makes wars legal by authorizing them. Wars not waged in self-defense are presumptively illegal under international law. It's like saying that the police trying to get a warrant to raid your house, failing, but doing so anyway is not illegal because the judge who refused the warrant did "jackshit" about it. That's not his job. (This is leaving aside that the US has a veto and would be a judge in its own case.)
Furthermore, if the standard for a violation of international law is "the Security Council doing something about it", then you cannot simultanouelsy argue that not letting in unlimited refugees is a violation - as the same is true there.
I'm not arguing that you should like international law, although I think that its prohibition on wars of aggression is generally good, but if you hate it you should hate it for the right reasons.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis. Again domestic laws require a basis, the UN convention is that basis. If the US left the UN tomorrow those domestic laws become voided.
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter. Your analogy is horrendous, this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
You do know how many refugees there were from Belgium and Spain before WW2?
They don't "need" that legal basis. You can make such laws in absence of any treaty.
You're very confused. Self-defense requires an imminent threat and does not require Security Council authorization, nor was there any attempt to make it rule for this to be a "refusal".
Then show it to be that.
It's based on your own claims. And no, being laughed out of court because your lies are so transparent doesn't justify either a raid or a war.
As usual, you're confident and totally incorrect.
Sadam had repeatedly violated the Treaty of Bagdahd following the first Gulf War. Regardless of the idiot justifications of Bush the Younger, invading him was legitimate.
Going full mask-off as the neocon you are, eh?
You: "treaties don't real."
You: sperging over Obama's treaty with Iran.
Neocon on.
Defending the Iraq war now, paid shill?
Nope lol. We should have nuked Afghanistan and then left.
But trying to pretend like treaties don't exist and are a matter of public record is just retarded lol.