> Elysian Thebes wrote:

> yeah

and when political means fail, you invade. courts are for rats and lawyers.

isnt that redundant?

So, according to this logic, asking nations to hand over war criminals is more imperialistic than invading countries and violently forcing change?

They are just angry Sudan sells their oil the Chinese.That the whole story.

also, the international court of justice in the hague (guessing you're talking about this) is part of the UN, not of the EU.

yea, how dare they prosecute warcriminals!

the bastards!

USA does it way better, they just arrest anyone with a beard, toss them in some camp, and then pretend they don't excist.
that's the way to go!

Primo,

Yes, how dare they arrest war criminals. The problem with this is that the issuing and enforcement of "international law" is a violation of national autonomy. It is the rudiments of an organization that could potentially pose a great threat to national autonomy in the future. I stand against any organization that would subvert the autonomy of nations by superceding the power of the state. It must be stopped immediately.

The US at least does it the old fashion way. We don't like you, we use political means to accomplish our objectives.

"The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achieving world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries and to provide a platform for dialogue."

so, damn them for doing what they were created for?

Justinian, why the bloody flying hell would the world allow warcriminals to be left alone? The warcriminals are those who triggered genocides, wich, I think, is detested worldwide. Therefore, it's justified to trial them.

Also "Autonomy of nations" is unexistant. The entire world depends on others to survive.

"The US at least does it the old fashion way. We don't like you, we use political means to accomplish our objectives."

Bollocks, negociating with other countries to hand over their war-criminals is politics, even more than warfare. Again, this doesn't have anything to do with "europeans" anymore, and it's merely a bash-europe thread...

----

To give you an example: what if Germany didn't trial the nazi-top after WWII? They would have gotten away with it and have a pretty comfortable life afterwards.. Such a thing is immoral and can't be justified..

has ICJ ever had a successful trial yet?

Alan,

I don't see how national autonomy and economic interdependence are mutually exclusive. We can trade and so on, and forget having an organization that attempts to supercede the power of states. Issuing and enforcing international law is a no no. Making trade agreement, communication, and resolving differences is fine.

Yes there are heads of states who are nasty, but none or few of them compare to the total slime like Stalin or Hitler. Before the UN, states used political means to deal with an imperialist or scumbag. They didn't trust them and they formed coalitions to destroy them or create a balance the power. What you did affected your relations with your neighbors. These recent acts of the UN are setting a dangerous precedent where nation states no longer have the autonomy they once had, and are instead subject to the power of a much larger organization.

In other words, I am in favor of a weak UN. A strong UN is threatening. I am also saying that European actions suggest a favor for a strong UN, because their media criticizes the independent actions of the US and Russia and Russian agents assassinate vocal European journalists, and the first victims of the expansion of the UN's role as a judicial power are targeting former heads of state in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, the other major powers are probably not involved, because the US, Russia, and China act very independently from the UN and seem to be vigilant of it performing such a role. All this leads to European involvement, although yes, it is only conjecture. But I think it is a sound conjecture given Europe's history and apparent attitudes toward the UN.

"I don't see how national autonomy and economic interdependence are mutually exclusive. We can trade and so on, and forget having an organization that attempts to supercede the power of states. Issuing and enforcing international law is a no no. Making trade agreement, communication, and resolving differences is fine."

Doesn't matter, as far as I know, the international court only applies on countries that are part of the UN. So there, it's a voluntary thing.

"Yes there are heads of states who are nasty, but none or few of them compare to the total slime like Stalin or Hitler. Before the UN, states used political means to deal with an imperialist or scumbag. They didn't trust them and they formed coalitions to destroy them or create a balance the power. What you did affected your relations with your neighbors. These recent acts of the UN are setting a dangerous precedent where nation states no longer have the autonomy they once had, and are instead subject to the power of a much larger organization."

Shall I start listing other genocides? And again, the UN IS politics, only a more sublime version. The UN is a coalition to destroy scumbags and to create a balance of power. It was Roosevelt who was a prime defender of the UN, the Europeans were rather synical about it at first, as they saw the League of Nations fail. Don't pretend it was 1) an evil thing and 2) from the europeans.

"These recent acts of the UN are setting a dangerous precedent where nation states no longer have the autonomy they once had, and are instead subject to the power of a much larger organization."

They do, all they have to do is to pull out of the UN..

"In other words, I am in favor of a weak UN. A strong UN is threatening. I am also saying that European actions suggest a favor for a strong UN, because their media criticizes the independent actions of the US and Russia and Russian agents assassinate vocal European journalists, and the first victims of the expansion of the UN's role as a judicial power are targeting former heads of state in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, the other major powers are probably not involved, because the US, Russia, and China act very independently from the UN and seem to be vigilant of it performing such a role. All this leads to European involvement, although yes, it is only conjecture. But I think it is a sound conjecture given Europe's history and apparent attitudes toward the UN.

THe UN is already weak, with systems like vetos etc. The EU indeed favours a strong UN, and Russia didn't kill a European journalist (at least not that I know of). These "victims" were leaders who carried out genocides dunderhead, or at least most of them.
For the rest: please, supply some sources, cause it's so untrue even I can't laugh with it anymore....

The UN is used by the US as a tool for international politics, and often gets the support of Europe. Examples are: economical restrictions on Cuba, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. None of these were european conflicts. The difference is that Europe sticks with the UN decisions and the US doesn't (look at Iraq a few years ago, when the UN decided not to invade)...

Please, don't claim it's a european tool to control international politics, cause it's not clucking true!
The only arrogance that's been displayed in this thread is yours Justinian, an arrogance to just disregard facts only to bash Europe..