As the title says. I've encountered many arguments against certain actions by certain nations that amounted to "it's against international law", or "the UN voted against that", with the implicit expectation that this should end the argument.
Why? Seriously, I don't understand.
Is the UN some sort of ascended, enlightened moral authority that is somehow above mere nation-states and their mortal constituents? Did the organization receive some sort of divine mandate from God/gods/aliens/ancestor spirits while I wasn't paying attention?
The UN's representatives, as well as the organization itself as a whole, has done many reprehensible things, some on the level of the worst nation-states out there. It is teeming with corruption. It regularly violates its own charter when convenient, without batting an eye. I've opened a thread on this topic awhile ago, and there were quite a few incidents to go through. I don't see that, based on actual, observable results, the organization or the laws it agrees on should be considered as above reproach.
Hell, even if it was squeaky clean, the entire thing is thinly veiled political theater and/or popularity contest, by design!
I understand arguing that a country should be held accountable to international law (at least, to a point), because supposedly they are voluntary signatories. But I've seen people arguing that it's evil to oppose international law, and I'm not talking about laws prohibiting genocide or such either.
What's up with this idealization of this bureaucratic chimera? Can anyone give me an insight into the leftist psyche on this matter?
Why? Seriously, I don't understand.
Is the UN some sort of ascended, enlightened moral authority that is somehow above mere nation-states and their mortal constituents? Did the organization receive some sort of divine mandate from God/gods/aliens/ancestor spirits while I wasn't paying attention?
The UN's representatives, as well as the organization itself as a whole, has done many reprehensible things, some on the level of the worst nation-states out there. It is teeming with corruption. It regularly violates its own charter when convenient, without batting an eye. I've opened a thread on this topic awhile ago, and there were quite a few incidents to go through. I don't see that, based on actual, observable results, the organization or the laws it agrees on should be considered as above reproach.
Hell, even if it was squeaky clean, the entire thing is thinly veiled political theater and/or popularity contest, by design!
I understand arguing that a country should be held accountable to international law (at least, to a point), because supposedly they are voluntary signatories. But I've seen people arguing that it's evil to oppose international law, and I'm not talking about laws prohibiting genocide or such either.
What's up with this idealization of this bureaucratic chimera? Can anyone give me an insight into the leftist psyche on this matter?