Can international laws really prohibit aggression by nations?
403822
Nothing can prohibit aggressive acts by other nations outside of self interest. Our modern era has shown that nations are reluctant to act aggressively unless they believe, correctly or not that these actions are in their own self interest. \n\nThe U.N., for example is the primary governing body for the global "league of nations" if you will. Each of the member nations are sovereign in their own right, and, while one would hope for benevolence and good will among all history has proven that the interest of the sovereign will supercede that of the greater good.\n\nThe idea that liberal democracies do not wage war against one another is not new - however is this argument based upon political systems and societal infrastructure, or the inherent fact that most liberal democracies have mature economies that depend upon external trade for their very existence? \n\nTo position this argument China is certainly not a liberal democracy, and their constant sabre rattling over Taiwan might eventually lead to very real slings and arrows being tossed over the Taiwan Strait. \n\nIf China were to invade or attack Taiwan, is it OK to fight because they are not a liberal democracy? Or, do we sit back because eliminating trade with China would cripple our economy?\n\nIf you were the Chinese leadership, in the contrary position, what decision would you make? Would you really launch an aggressive war against Taiwan, alienating your growing economy from the global market and starving your nation of it's desperately needed energy supply?\n\nI don't ever see China invading Taiwan unless they truly believe, correctly or incorrectly that it is their best strategic option.\n\nThus, this is a really long way of saying international law doesn't mean jack - Nations act based upon what their leaders want, because they think it will get them what they need. "Laws" aren't going to stand in their way. \n\nIf you're looking for more evidence, Google Germany, 1939-45.
189964
I would not, because in general I am against foreign wars.  Someone comes to attack us, of course we defend ourselves.  Otherwise, I prefer we stay out of trouble.\n\nBut what's Spain done lately?
256162
Very interesting question indeed!  I believe that the knee-jerk reaction to this question would be "no", however, when thinking about it more broadly--I guess ultimately the answer is "yes".  Perhaps this is the basis of "justified war" that religious organizations speak about.  A good example from recent history would be the horrific events of Nazi Germany, Rwanda & currently in Darfur & Congo.  Since  genocide was (is) happening, violence may be necessary--and then acceptable to put an end to the problem.
776216
yes i agree. war can be avoidable & have parmanent alternative.
966740
It's spitting, or as some less polite people call it, a pissing, contest between judges in different countries.\n\nThe classic cases are those of the late Freddie Laker, who was put out of business (Laker Airways) by the combined efforts (a conspiracy in restraint of trade) of all the main IATA translatlantic carriers.\n\nSir Lawrence Collins has written on this; and his Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 14th ed., just out, is probably the best source of information. That and some law review articles in the USA.\n\nBut I can refer you to some cases.\nhttp://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/731F2d909.html\nhttp://tinyurl.com/v2whu\n\nThe point is that in anticipation of a RICO or an antitrust case, or even a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a (typically) European firm might seek an injunction against a US firm from bringing an action in the US that would impair the European firm's interests.\n\nThe US firm -- and perhaps the US judge -- could freely ignore the injunction, and there could be an endless series of opposing orders. In the end, comity might, or might not, end the conflict. Collins wrote an article on comity that was published in a Festschrfit: Comity in "Modern Private International Law, in Reform and Development of Private International Law Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North".\n\nHow much do you really want to know? I could write lots more; but suffice to say an anti-suit injunction is an effort to prevent someone presumably subject to the laws of one country from frustrating that country's public policy by bringing suit elsewhere. Typically in the USA. And, if such suit is brought and judgment issued, the policy might be to block the enforcement of that judgment: U.K. Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, French law No. 80-538 of 6 July 1980, art. 273 of the Swiss Penal Code , the Mexican law “to protect trade and investment from foreign norms that contravene international law”, Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.
798962
Of course not. The only sharia law is in the minds of those backward, dead sculls that want to take the world back to the dark ages. It is only due to the world's cowardice that certain practices in some counries are tolerated. Examples are like whipping people in public and cutting off heads of people for prostitution or wrongful death.
152786
No. But it is the force by which laws can be upheld.
817521
cant say for sure. ask scott@antiwar.com
512103
Probably never, since the US generally does not recognize international courts authorities over US troops.
583599
No, there are no laws to keep any groups from trying to influence the media. Their influence is what the media allows it to be, just as the influence of the media is what the people allow it to be.
128718
No. The laws protect them.
135224
Personally, no war can be considered justified. Common citizens of rival countries usually don't have any real reason to kill each other. Their governments make them think there is a reason.
454755
As long as there are conflicting interest between individual impulses and the overall needs of the community, there will be laws. Laws set boundaries so that people can interact positively, causing minimum damage to each other. Whether it's following traffic laws (e.g. who gets to go first, where each car can drive in what direction, etc. to avoid accidents) to international trade (how much different currencies are worth, how much has to be paid for items, etc.), it is all about creating a benefit for the overall community so that we all can have better lives.
789296
Well I think you clearly answered your own question or maybe you have two seperate questions: \n\nCan the UN legally force a country to peform a military withdraw? \n\nCan the UN, if found to have legitimate power to do the later, do they have the "balls" to do so.. \n\nAnswer, NO and NO. The UN can apply "sanctions"(which we know how effective those are) but the history of the UN never was one of military force, rather a collection of governed nations helping one another provide assistance throughout the world. \n\nNATO on the other hand does have a standing military and was created for a totally seperate reason alltogether.
544512
Why couldn't the UN? Not only did the UN not try to stop it, the UN authorized it!
166981
Definite NO! If that were to happen, then freewill would be forfeited to that power. If one disagrees with that power, it could mean death for that person.\n\nThis is going to happen though, in the not-too-distant future. America is that Superpower. You've already witnessed what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Soon America's going to just overrule the UN Security council & do what she pleases with the world. I say overrule in the assumption that 1 or 2 countries may disagree with this but most of them will agree with being ruled by America.
896617
Well you asked 2 question...\nDo you have the right?\nNo! absolute not! I don´t know much about American Law (you must be from there) but most international Law has a thing called proportion...for example, if somebody with no gun try to rob you, you can´t kill him with a bazooka ´cause you answered such higher than the danger that he could provoke on you...\n\nWhat would you do?\nIf I could I  would  kick his a-s-s deeply, or if he´s stronger I would call my friends to help me on that but it would be pointless...\nExpect for reaction, it always come...You should know who you´re fighting with...if he´s not involving in any gang...\nIf he´s not the wise thing to do is react immediately, he spits on you and you bang on his nose immediately...and go away...