Occhidiangela,Mar 27 2003, 02:13 PM Wrote:International Law.It's more of the paradox, at least.
A lot of folks are claiming that US is violating 'International Law' while they appear to ignore the violations of Geneva Convention and International Law in Iraq, and other places.
Whatever the various merits and demerits of those discussions, no Law is any better than its enforcement, or the extent of voluntary obedience.
So, for those who claim that the US violates international law with this action in support of enforcing UN resolutions (that is a bit ironic, really) I would ask anyone just what the hell they tend to do about it? Who will enforce the law?
If you're going to appeal to the UN's authority for disarming Iraq, well you can't go ahead ignoring that authority as it applies to yourself, and expect anyone to believe that your doing it because of the UN's authority.
You can find independent grounds for saying that the UN sanctions on Iraq are good, like this will contain Saddam who is dangerous, etc. But you can no longer say that Iraq's UN violations are bad just because they are UN violations.
The paradox of vigilantianism - vigilanties arise in the vacuum (or percieved vacuum) of law, to enforce the law, by breaking the law. There is no enforcement, the law has no meaning, hence there is nothing for the vigilanties to enforce. (Or, if they are enforcing something, it's because no-one is enforcing the law as it applies to them.) If the law had meaning, there would be no need for vigilantiasm, as it would be officially enforced. Maybe this is appropriate in some situations, but it's not lawful.