Does international law still matter? | Doha Debates

World based order rules are a shame. Those rules were made post two world war.. when those rules suit them they embrace them. But the USA and its vassal state would never allow unipolar order to collapse. The multi-polar order will emacipate the so-called developing nations from Brentwood policies. Who is chair the world bank, of course an American, who chairs IMF an European. What double standards

The UN Security Council veto power granted to the Permanent Five members creates a structural imbalance where powerful states can block enforcement actions against themselves, leading many legal scholars and observers to debate whether international law is truly binding on major powers

Victor gao is such funny guy. <br><br>The international arbitral tribunal ruled that China&#39;s expansive maritime claims and coercive actions in the South China Sea violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but still out Chinese communist party tramples on it. <br><br>This al Jazeera journalist does not even question that.

There’s no way to make the system work.<br><br>What’s the point when Israel can have America stonewall any meaningful action in its genocide on the Palestinians, or Russia that’s a security council member, is immune to the same in Ukraine. <br><br>It’s a joke to everyone of all sides

When the ones who make the laws and enforce the laws break their own laws, there is no rule of law. And there are obviously certain groups of people who exist above the laws that most of humanity is expected to live under. <br>If leading by example is a standard of leadership, what standards are your masters setting?<br>Hypocrisy. <br>Insatiable greed.<br>Deception and Manipulation.<br>Gaslighting. <br>War-profiteering. <br>Market manipulation.<br>Monopolies. <br>Debt bondage. <br>Insider trading.<br>Non-Accountability.<br>Conspiracy. <br>Indoctrination and subversion.<br>Propaganda.<br>Divisiveness. <br>Crimes against humanity.<br>Crimes against the environment. <br>Slavery. <br>Human trafficking. <br>Mass human experimentation.<br>Mass depopulation. <br>Settler colonialism. <br>Ethnic cleanaings.<br>Genocides. <br>Endless wars.<br><br>You cannot hate your ruling classes enough for allowing these cycles of misery and suffering to continue, while also profitting greatly from it.

So they realized it very late, international law is toothless. If a law is understood as coming from the Creator, rulers cannot legitimately claim that whatever benefits them is automatically right. Worldly law can prohibit theft, but divine teachings can also make honesty a duty even when no one is watching.

I was just thinking about this. I think we need to accept that most people don&#39;t believe in international law. That&#39;s why it&#39;s so ineffective, nobody is interested in enforcing it. The powerful don&#39;t think they need it, the powerless view it as a luxury they cannot afford in their fight. Most people view human rights as a contract: a transactional exchange of goodwill, where if one party breaks it, the other is justified in doing the same crimes or worse. WWII was huge in the creation of international law, and I think the sad part is most people were faking it. They condemn the Natsees because they&#39;re told it was the worst thing ever. It&#39;s cultural pressure more than an ideological embrace of human rights.