|
Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Double Standard. . . (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Excuse me? You invoke the UN resolutions, but yet, that didn't mean when it came down to unilateral invasion of a sovereign country. No consistancy whatsoever. |
:HAHA: again with the nearsightedness. give this about 8 more years and another 10 UN resolutions if you want to draw LEGITIMATE parallells between Iran and Iraq, Krypton. until then at least respect the ******* process.
| quote: | | Israel's nuclear stockpile is the catalyst for Iranian aspirations for their own nuclear arsenal |
thats a fallacy. Iran doesn't want nukes because they're jealous of Israel.
thats absurd. you don't invest as much time and money and clandestined effort in something like obtaining and weaponizing nuclear weapons for something as simple as spite.
you don't subject your country to the penalties that Iran has had to endure over 5 years for something as petty an emotion as jealousy or gamesmanship. ya just don't.
you want nuclear weapons for something much more. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace#_note-0
I am not saying it's the sole reason for such biased support. I am saying that the west identifies and relates to Israel on so many more levels than Iran because of the mutual cultural values held by Israel and the west. Many factors play a role, but I believe such a relation contributes to the wholesale support of Israel despite the illegal 40 year old Israeli occupation. |
I don't think you are interpreting Democratic Peace Theory correctly. Doyle argues that Democratic Peace Theory is an explanation for why democracies, defined the way he lays out there, don't fight each other. It isn't a diagnosis of how policy-makers in democracies view each other. In other words, he argues that peace is a result of structural similarities that preclude violent conflict, and that conflict between democracies is resolved peacefully due to the structural realities of liberal democracies - not that policy-makers say "hey, that's a democracy, we should agree with everything they do." |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
If I can somehow change international law to make all states equal under the law, then I'll do it, if I ever become that powerful. First thing I'de do is get rid of these sanctions. Because if anyone deserves sanctions, it's the USA and Israel, and any other occupiers of world.
|
In this case it isn't a matter of international law being applicable to all states. NPT is a treaty, not international law. Those states that willfully sign it are held to the terms of the treaty; those that do not sign it cannot be legally responsible for the terms included. It's just like Kyoto - the US has not signed it, so we are not legally obligated to fulfill the terms of the Treaty, whereas states that have are (theoretically).
Iran signed the NPT and is now failing to live up to its terms (in the opinion of some people) - that is a serious breach of international trust and responsibility (if true).
I don't think you are understanding the difference between international law and a multilateral treaty - a multilateral treaty's membership is voluntary. Think of it like a social contract - states give up a little bit of their freedom in order to pursue a wider-held international norm (in this case, non-proliferation). |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I don't think you are understanding the difference between international law and a multilateral treaty - a multilateral treaty's membership is voluntary. Think of it like a social contract - states give up a little bit of their freedom in order to pursue a wider-held international norm (in this case, non-proliferation). |
international law only applies to countries that voluntarily join the UN or any other organization, such as the WTO. So in a sense, international law is just as voluntary. |
|
|
| hiram |
| we need an ally in the area to do our dirty work |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
international law only applies to countries that voluntarily join the UN or any other organization, such as the WTO. So in a sense, international law is just as voluntary. |
Well, yes, but this gets into the distinction of what makes a state - statehood hinges upon international recognition, which can only be officially achieved by signing onto the UN Charter. So in essence, all states are members of the UN, and are therefore subject to international law. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Well, yes, but this gets into the distinction of what makes a state - statehood hinges upon international recognition, which can only be officially achieved by signing onto the UN Charter. So in essence, all states are members of the UN, and are therefore subject to international law. |
while you are correct that statehood normally depends on international recognition (at least in post-WW2 days), you are not correct that it takes signing the UN charter to become a nation.
First, the UN charter itself states: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." This means that the territory must first be a state before it can enter the UN.
Second, no one will dispute that the vatican is a nation, but the vatican is not a member of the UN. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
but the vatican is not a member of the UN. |
Sure it is - but it is listed under the name Holy See. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
while you are correct that statehood normally depends on international recognition (at least in post-WW2 days), you are not correct that it takes signing the UN charter to become a nation.
First, the UN charter itself states: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." This means that the territory must first be a state before it can enter the UN. |
Hmmm... it seems that the truth may be somewhat more complicated than either of our assumptions.
Check out pages 26-28 from "The Concept of Statehood in International Law," a behemoth of a book by James Crawford:
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-826002-4.pdf
Declaratory (statehood based on fulfilling certain empirical criteria) and constitutive (statehood based on recognition) seem to both play a role in the practical definition of statehood, though international law never seems to be as clear as it should. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Hmmm... it seems that the truth may be somewhat more complicated than either of our assumptions.
Check out pages 26-28 from "The Concept of Statehood in International Law," a behemoth of a book by James Crawford:
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-826002-4.pdf
Declaratory (statehood based on fulfilling certain empirical criteria) and constitutive (statehood based on recognition) seem to both play a role in the practical definition of statehood, though international law never seems to be as clear as it should. |
interesting article from what i've read. His conclusion runs counter to your previous statement that recognition is what forms a state. Specifically the conclusion states, "...the status of an entity as a state is, in principle, independent of recognition..." Although it seems clear that he is suggesting that a state may exist without being recognized, i'm sure he weakens that conclusion somewhere in the article. |
|
|
|
|
