War in Gaza

[Josh]

If someone reviewed my opinions from a few years ago or longer ago, I used to be more sceptical of supra-national bodies like the UN or the ICC. Nowadays I would view them as having a certain level of legitimacy when it comes to regulating or at least documenting the conduct of leaders of nations; one of the purposes of the UN was to avoid something like World War II happening again.

In particluar, the non-participant nations like America, Russia, Israel, China, or India are amongst the worst offenders of engaging in military adventurism around the globe and against their neighbours. To me, this seems unlawful, whether ranging from the ongoing "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine (which Russia claims isn't a war); America's "major military engagement" in Iraq and Afghanistan (which America claims wasn't a war); Israel's ongoing seige of Gaza (which they claim is their own territory so isn't a war).

It would seem good if their leaders were actually accountable not to pick fights and start wars.

And this newfound respect and admiration for supranational, bureaucratic organizations blooms from what particularly?

I think minimising war, and particular mass, total war is a good thing. The history of my own country is very poor in this regard, particularly the mass war conducted in my lifetime (Gulf War II / Iraq / Afghanistan). Likewise, the present actions of Russia are very poor, and the present actions of Israel are likewise very poor. It is appropriate for a duly constituted body to pass judgment about such things.

Whilst in our Constitution Presidents have a great deal of authority and autonomy, I don't really believe in any individuals somehow having the "right' to be a law unto themselves, but the current system of the nation-state pioneered by Napoleon Bonaparte seems to have become just that, reserving near absolute authority for the nation-state itself and its de facto head. Democracies can only do so much to regulate the actions of these types of leaders: Israeli democracy is strong and thriving, yet sometimes a leader like Netanyahu worms his way in with a corrupt coalition (and many of Netanyahu's actions last year were to weaken the strength and independence of that democracy, such as him asserting absolute control over the formerly independent Supreme Court of Israel). I think independent checks and balances are good.

I don't think supranational bodies should be dictating to constituent countries what goes on within their borders, but I do think the heads of state (or de facto heads of state) should face some fear and accountability for their warmongering, just as the shoplifter should face some fear and accountability of the magistrate's court.

[HondurasKeiser]

I was simply calling attention to the fact that most Augustinians (in America) don't have much or any appreciation for ICC. So to use them as a barometer on war crimes, isn't going to make much difference.

I don't know how you can know that particularly. Inasmuch as "Augustinians" believe in ideas like "Just use of the Sword" and supra-national organizations like the UN and ICC and EU promote a kind of de-sacralized 'Just War Theory' and likewise rely on the use or threat of force to legitimate their proclamations; it appears that proponents of said supranational organizations are just as likely to be Augustinian in orientation as their detractors.

[HondurasKeiser]

I don't think supranational bodies should be dictating to constituent countries what goes on within their borders,

That of course is the inevitability though, isn't it? I see it here in Honduras all the time.

[Ken]

If someone reviewed my opinions from a few years ago or longer ago, I used to be more sceptical of supra-national bodies like the UN or the ICC. Nowadays I would view them as having a certain level of legitimacy when it comes to regulating or at least documenting the conduct of leaders of nations; one of the purposes of the UN was to avoid something like World War II happening again.

In particluar, the non-participant nations like America, Russia, Israel, China, or India are amongst the worst offenders of engaging in military adventurism around the globe and against their neighbours. To me, this seems unlawful, whether ranging from the ongoing "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine (which Russia claims isn't a war); America's "major military engagement" in Iraq and Afghanistan (which America claims wasn't a war); Israel's ongoing seige of Gaza (which they claim is their own territory so isn't a war).

It would seem good if their leaders were actually accountable not to pick fights and start wars.

In the US probably in most countries that are signatories to the international criminal court, treaties are the supreme law of the land. The supremacy clause of the US constitution says it outright. So for a country such as France that is a signatory to the ICC, the ICC represents the highest court and the supreme law of the land and not the lowest court such as some local magistrate administering misdemeanor offenses.

Whether or not any ordinary citizen respects the ICC is beside the point. In the 124 countries that are signatories to the agreement, they are the highest law of the land, equivalent to a national Supreme Court if you will.

The hypocrisy of the non-participant countries like the US, Russia, India, Israel, and China is that they want to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction for themselves, they just don't want to be held to it. The US has been hunting the globe for terrorists and drug cartel leaders for decades and claims jurisdiction to extradite them and try them even though many/most have never set foot in the US. Russia does the same with its meddling in the affairs of all its neighbors. And Israel has famously hunted Nazis around the world for decades. People who have never set foot inside Israel. And all those countries claim international law when it comes to protecting their own investments. Watch how fast China turns to international law the first time some country defaults on Chinese infrastructure loans.

Personally I think the bigger issue with the ICC is whether its existence makes it more difficult to depose foreign dictators who may be more reluctant to leave office if they know they are subject to persecution. People have made that very argument about Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela who is under ICC investigation/indictment. However I'm skeptical of that argument. Dictatorial autocrats were not known for leaving office willingly before the ICC. So I don't think much has changed there. But at least it is a legitimate argument.

[Ken]

I don't think supranational bodies should be dictating to constituent countries what goes on within their borders,

That of course is the inevitability though, isn't it? I see it here in Honduras all the time.

Of course. Watch what happens if Honduras decides to default on its international debt? Or say the new Chinese-financed railroad between the Atlantic and Pacific that is proposed for Honduras: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 023-07-07/

You think the Chinese would just sit still and shrug and say "whatever goes on within the borders of Honduras is not our affair"

[HondurasKeiser]

I don't think supranational bodies should be dictating to constituent countries what goes on within their borders,

That of course is the inevitability though, isn't it? I see it here in Honduras all the time.

Of course. Watch what happens if Honduras decides to default on its international debt? Or say the new Chinese-financed railroad between the Atlantic and Pacific that is proposed for Honduras: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 023-07-07/

You think the Chinese would just sit still and shrug and say "whatever goes on within the borders of Honduras is not our affair"

"Selling" your country to the Chinese is not quite the same thing though as a supranational organizations, by hook or by crook, imposing their will on member states.

[RZehr]

Great powerful countries simply don’t have the need as much for these international organizations as much as small countries do. For the powerful, may be that the downsides outweigh the upside.

[Ken]

That of course is the inevitability though, isn't it? I see it here in Honduras all the time.

Of course. Watch what happens if Honduras decides to default on its international debt? Or say the new Chinese-financed railroad between the Atlantic and Pacific that is proposed for Honduras: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 023-07-07/

You think the Chinese would just sit still and shrug and say "whatever goes on within the borders of Honduras is not our affair"

"Selling" your country to the Chinese is not quite the same thing though as a supranational organizations, by hook or by crook, imposing their will on member states.

It really isn't any different.

International organizations like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO are supranational organizations that regulate the flow of money and trade across national boundaries. The only way that Honduran debt to international lenders or international contracts with countries like China have any weight and meaning is because those institutions exist, and exist to regulate the international flow of money.

The ICC is not really any different except that it protects people across international boundaries rather than money.

One might well ask whether money is more worthy of protection than people across international boundaries. What would be the Biblical or Christian answer to that question?

[Grace]

It looks like the Biden's $320 million pier to get relief for the Palestinians in Gaza is turning into a disaster. You would have thought that the engineers of the project would have figured this out beforehand. The question is, was the project hurriedly pushed through without proper research? And if so why?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... chaos.html

[Josh]

Neither Hamas nor Netanyahu wanted the floating pier. Guess they got what they wanted.