> Justinian I wrote:
> 4. Yes. I mean nation-states are fully independent. There should be no international law at all. Any attempts for a world government ought to be ruthlessly opposed. And on this, I am uncompromising. I am not a Terran. I am an American.
To be realistic, the UN's power is ineffective. Ultimately, the major powers can and do ignore them whenever it suits their purposes. I approve of the fact that the UN is powerless without the cooperation of its member states. What I don't approve of is the laughable efforts by major powers to justify wars driven by self-interest under the pretenses of international law, when they ignore violations that do not concern them. And even with this defacto state of affairs in the UN, a lot still gets done. But I'm afraid that this defacto state of affairs could result in a stronger UN because of the ideas we're putting in people's heads.
While I won't dispute the underlying fact you present (that wars are generally issues of national self-interest, rather than human rights-focused), doesn't the idea of human rights help to prevent some wars? If the world accepts "wars are legitimate as long as they can help one of the participants in the outcome," it generally gives nations the international legitimacy to go on whatever conquering or counter-conquering sprees they desire. However, if a nation is ethically required to conjure up some sort of casus belli for their war or risk international legitimacy loss... doesn't that at least allow rallying of nations against, say... Germany-Poland-type war scenarios?