• TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The international courts are courts in name only. They don’t have power because it is by design and thus any rulings are non-binding. The only real power there is is the UNSC, and it is extremely corrupt as everyone knows.

    • frozenspinach@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      It sounds like for you the signature of legitimacy is not the soundness of legal judgments as developed within consensus and consent and principle based deliberation, but their enforceability with weapons. And so I think we probably have diametrically opposite ideas of what renders laws legitimate.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I did not make the rules, the ruling class did. If you are not aware, the UN is never meant to have legal power. Why do you think the UN General Assembly “pass” resolutions in favour of the oppressed (stopping the war in Ukraine , lifting sanctions on Cuba, stopping the Israeli settlement on Palestinian lands, declaring the war on Iraq as illegal), and yet nothing happened?

        The UN is meant to be a “platform” for diplomacy, not act as the world government. If you read more about international “law”, the more you will realise how farcical and practically nonexistent it is. The terms accords, agreement and treaty don’t mean the same thing in international “law”. The United States even repeated several times they will invade The Hague should the international courts prosecute any American citizens.

        Notice I have put quotations on some words, which is to highlight that in practice, they don’t have binding power and therefore don’t mean anything.