Is unilateral action a right of a superpower? (3 Viewers)

[walrusbear]

was this thread just a chance for loquasagacious to pontificate?
all i could garner from 5 pages is 'super powers are powerful therefore, have right to abuse it'
take some more gov classes. this is stupid

 

[loquasagacious]

Walrusbear perhaps a debate without a credible opposition becomes pontification? How about instead of saying 'take more govt classes' you take me on? Oh and on a random note two more courses and I finnish my International Relations major....

there is a massive difference between a right and an option, surely you can see that.

Out of interest I would actually like you to define the difference.

This statement made me ponder the differences and my conclusion was that there is very little differences. We basically have an option to do pretty much anything however the cost may be so prohibitive as to preclude us from engaging in an option. eg a black could have exercised the option to go to a white toilet but the consequences were dire enough to deter. When does an option become a right?

When the option can be freely exercised? When the desire to take option can be enforced by a higher body? When the option is decalred a right by the UN (having avoided veto by the permenant members of the security council)?

My position is that the international system is lawless to the extent that there may be laws but they are unenforced, hence the only right is power. Therefore if you have the power to act unilaterally then you have the right.

this is a nothing argument. anyone can see that superpowers have the capacity to act unilaterally, that's what makes them superpowers. just like a criminal gang has the capacity to break the law and commit crimes. what do you consider to be a more preferable scenario - a state where a criminal gang can rampage unpunished by law because they are too strong to be dealt with and choose to ignore the law, or a state where the law is upheld by all and gangs are punsihed for breaches of it. this seems like a very easy question to answer.

There is no super-state body that can enforce law hence there may as well be no law. You seem to live in some kind of pipedream. The league of nations and UN were founded on your principles, what did/have/are they doing? Not very much at all, people far less states do not follow the law voluntarily we are compelled to. Domestically the police, justice and penal systems compel us, internationally we are not compelled.

how can unilateral action be legitimate if it is illegal?

By being in the interests of the state that takes it? By being democratically supported by the state that takes it?

quite obviously it is not a good thing for one state to act unilaterally in defiance of international law because the law is there to foster cooperation and peace, just as it is in domestic societies. if you have criminals breaching the law this is hardly conducive to peace.

Why do criminals break the law? They are afterall people like you or I, the answer is because the incentive to do so is greater than what they percieve the odds of being punished are multiplied by the punishment.

In society most of us are not criminals because the incentive is low, the odds of being punished high and the punishment severe. In the international realm the reverse is true, must of us are criminals because the incentive is high, the punishment odds low and the punishment non-existent.

The qualifier here being the hierachy of power results in those at the top running the show hence they fit the above category well being unpunishable, however weak states at the bottom can be punished by the strong and so are less likely to be 'criminal' which is to say they will be likley to do what they're told.

just look at the US - it has shown contempt for international law and breached it by attacking Iraq and now look, it is involved in a perpetual war which it cannot win.

This is at least the second time you've dragged out this straw-man. The failure of one instance of unilateral action hardly demonstrates the fallibility of unilateral action on the whole or a lack of its legitimacy as an option.

your claim that 'the world cannot be changed' is pretty ignorant. even fukuyama reneged on his 'end of history' claim.

This line is pretty fanciful. And also proves your lack of comprehension skills (or maybe its because you have bad short term memory) as I have answered this before.

Fukuyama's statement was clearly fanciful and I would argue to a large degree figurative. Mine is confrontingly realistic; the principles under which we have conducted International Relations have not changed for thousands of years, millions even, the basic principles remain the same that governed warring tribes, early states in the middle-east, biblical kingdoms, ancient greeks, the fuedal states of the dark ages and renaissance powers.

We have a long track record of not changing, why would be suddenly change?

international law could quite easily be enforced, you can arrest, charge and try politicians for breaches of the law just as you would regular citizens. it is merely a question of changing peoples' perceptions of international law.

Sorry it took me a while to stop laughing at this. But who exactly is going to arrest President Bush? The UN issues a warrant for his arrest (which remarkably isnt vetoed) and then interpol knocks on the door to the whitehouse. Bush hands himself over for questioning. He is flown to switzerland and questioned. He is subsequently trialled by the ICC/similar in Belgium. After being found guilty he is sentenced to life imprisonment.

Wake up and smell the roses you are living in a fairy-tale land.

 

[spell check]

Out of interest I would actually like you to define the difference. This statement made me ponder the differences and my conclusion was that there is very little differences. We basically have an option to do pretty much anything however the cost may be so prohibitive as to preclude us from engaging in an option. eg a black could have exercised the option to go to a white toilet but the consequences were dire enough to deter. When does an option become a right?

When the option can be freely exercised? When the desire to take option can be enforced by a higher body? When the option is decalred a right by the UN (having avoided veto by the permenant members of the security council)?

My position is that the international system is lawless to the extent that there may be laws but they are unenforced, hence the only right is power. Therefore if you have the power to act unilaterally then you have the right.

your definition of a 'right' is pretty wrong. you could have just checked the dictionary or numerous legislative definitions.

power is not a right - rights are conferred equally regardless of power. you may well have the capability to break the law and get away with it but that doesn't mean breaking the law becomes your 'right.' this really is quite uncontroversial, i don't see how there can be any debate about it.

There is no super-state body that can enforce law hence there may as well be no law. You seem to live in some kind of pipedream. The league of nations and UN were founded on your principles, what did/have/are they doing? Not very much at all, people far less states do not follow the law voluntarily we are compelled to. Domestically the police, justice and penal systems compel us, internationally we are not compelled.

you seem to forget that the law applies to politicians/public servants just as much as it does to regular people. if they formulate a policy that is illegal then they can be held to account.

This is at least the second time you've dragged out this straw-man. The failure of one instance of unilateral action hardly demonstrates the fallibility of unilateral action on the whole or a lack of its legitimacy as an option.

can you provide some examples of unilateral action that were legitimate perhaps, to illustrate your argument?

Fukuyama's statement was clearly fanciful and I would argue to a large degree figurative. Mine is confrontingly realistic; the principles under which we have conducted International Relations have not changed for thousands of years, millions even, the basic principles remain the same that governed warring tribes, early states in the middle-east, biblical kingdoms, ancient greeks, the fuedal states of the dark ages and renaissance powers.

it is only in the last hundred years that humans have recognised women and black people to be equal to men and white people, so clearly things do change. the point is that these 'basic principles' have meant a shameful history of wars and violence.

also it is only in modern times that technology has meant powerful states have lost their monopoly on violence. weak individuals and groups have the potential to cause damage to the strongest states. this is perhaps one of the primary strategic arguments for creating an international system based on cooperation and perceiving all injusticies to be problems, even in other states.

We have a long track record of not changing, why would be suddenly change?

because it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the entire population to do so.

Sorry it took me a while to stop laughing at this. But who exactly is going to arrest President Bush? The UN issues a warrant for his arrest (which remarkably isnt vetoed) and then interpol knocks on the door to the whitehouse. Bush hands himself over for questioning. He is flown to switzerland and questioned. He is subsequently trialled by the ICC/similar in Belgium. After being found guilty he is sentenced to life imprisonment.

if Bush breaks the law then why would he not be punished? it would only take the creation of a norm that international obligations signed and agreed to by states must be adhered to (a resolution that the US vetoed after being found guilty of terrorism against nicaragua by the world court).

i'm pretty sure there have always been people like you claiming that things are 'too hard' and 'will never happen' whenever historic shifts occur.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

your definition of a 'right' is pretty wrong. you could have just checked the dictionary or numerous legislative definitions.

power is not a right - rights are conferred equally regardless of power. you may well have the capability to break the law and get away with it but that doesn't mean breaking the law becomes your 'right.' this really is quite uncontroversial, i don't see how there can be any debate about it.

Who confers these rights to people? Who decides that people in the west have a right to education? People with power. If rights do not come from power, where do they come from?

I suppose it's possible that they have arisen somewhat out of our most basic of morals (derived from our genes), but when we're getting to the right to have an education, the right to vote etc the connection becomes much harder to see

you seem to forget that the law applies to politicians/public servants just as much as it does to regular people. if they formulate a policy that is illegal then they can be held to account.

Well why can't they just break the law... Why can't they change it... Why can't they ignore it? A superpower has the capability to do these things.

i'm pretty sure there have always been people like you claiming that things are 'too hard' and 'will never happen' whenever historic shifts occur.

I'm pretty sure there have always been people like you? History have shown that both groups in different times / different situations can be right and wrong.... What's the point of this?

 

[walrusbear]

yo i apologise for the post
nothing personal meant, it wasn't worth posting

 

[loquasagacious]

Ntb welcome to the fray, some salient points - I have avoided repeating them, though I agree whole-heartedly.

Walrusbear I must confess a deep curiosity as to what it was you said...

you seem to forget that the law applies to politicians/public servants just as much as it does to regular people. if they formulate a policy that is illegal then they can be held to account.

This dodges the issue.

Please explain some plausible scenario where George Bush is arrested and tried for war crimes.

Have a glance at history and you will see that it is the loosers who are 'held to account' take for instance the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals and contrast to the unpunished intentional fire-bombing of civilian targets in both Germany and Japan by the Allies. In fact Robert MacNamara (who crewed a bomber over Japan) holds that had they lost they would've been up for war crimes considering what they were doing.

Lets move abit more recently say Vietnam war; napalm, agent orange, carpet bombing, operation phoenix, etc. Did we see General Westmorland, Nixon or Kissinger up on War Crimes charges? How about we look at the former yugoslavia, the loosers have been indicted on war crimes.

The problem with your idealism is that nobody cares. The socialist alternatives may get fired up about Bush's 'illegal war' but it hasn't toppled governments, Bush, Blair and Howard were all returned.

can you provide some examples of unilateral action that were legitimate perhaps, to illustrate your argument?

Another straw man, do you have nothing else is your arsenal?

I said it was a "legitimate option" meaning it was a valid option to take. You want examples that were legitimate meaning legal. Well I'm not falling in this trap - because simply it is illusory, it is a trap based on law when law is not applicable the trap has no teeth.

My response then is that every single exercise of unilateral action has been legitimate in that it served the percieved interests of the initiating state.

it is only in the last hundred years that humans have recognised women and black people to be equal to men and white people, so clearly things do change. the point is that these 'basic principles' have meant a shameful history of wars and violence.

Can anyone else say straw man? So now realism is like racism and sexism congratulations this is a conceptual leap not many have been able to make, please enlighten those of us who could not make the leap of faith ourselves, please explain the link here.

This comparison bears almost as much weight as saying that only in the last hundred years has sanitation been widespread in the western world or that only in the last fifty years have we been able to buy affordable cars therefore things change therefore realism will change.

Congratulations you have proved that things change, you have not proven that the principles that underly realism will change.

I on the other hand have offered a fairly comprehensive reason that realism will fade because the international system as we know it will fade as neo-liberalism reaches ascendency.

I have presented a solid programme of change and comprehensivley asserted its how and why it will triumph. You have held up some lofty notions of internationalism and suggested that somehow the entire population will gasp with suprise at the international system when some friendly left-wing intelligensia lift the wool from their eyes and then promptly declare they will be good international citizens etc etc utopia eventuates.

also it is only in modern times that technology has meant powerful states have lost their monopoly on violence. weak individuals and groups have the potential to cause damage to the strongest states. this is perhaps one of the primary strategic arguments for creating an international system based on cooperation and perceiving all injusticies to be problems, even in other states.

Well in this case a revitalised UN touting a 'global defence force' is just around the corner. It will send out fact finding missions from on high into states across the globe. Trample their soveriegnty if they resist and then after much deliberation and a veto or three will reach a conclusion that the solution to africa is to throw truckloads of condoms and money at despots until evrything is fixed. Or upon discovering that China is oppressing Falun Gong practioners an invasion will be launched China occupied and the civil rights of its populace enforced by the global defence force...

if Bush breaks the law then why would he not be punished? it would only take the creation of a norm that international obligations signed and agreed to by states must be adhered to (a resolution that the US vetoed after being found guilty of terrorism against nicaragua by the world court).

Oh so it just needs a new norm of behaviour to be in place, well how about you hammer out the finer details of this norm and meet me back here in half an hour. We'll both bring along some politically active friends and I reckon we can have this new norm applied by tea-time.

I've outlined, explained, bludegeoned, etc the reasons why this will never work in precis:
*It hasnt worked before.
*The incentive to break the norm is to big.
*The disincentive for a strong state is negligible.
*The general populace is quite happy the way things are.
*etc
*etc

 

[loquasagacious]

Given up spell check? Conceeded defeat?

 

[walrusbear]

haven't you taken thousands of words to essentially just say that superpowers have a right to take unilateral action because they're more powerful than everyone else?

 

[Comrade nathan]

haven't you taken thousands of words to essentially just say that superpowers have a right to take unilateral action because they're more powerful than everyone else?

His title does say Ancient Orator. He is a great Sophist perhaps.

 

[berry580]

Communist!

Do you even know what is "communism"?
Know why the Communist was so successful initially? It helps the poor.
Why did it fail? It's not the the ideology's problem, it's OUR problem, laziness and greed.

morals > survival

for me anyway

In that case, you might as well suicide right now.
Because in reality, it is always

survival > moral

and when I say always, I mean ALWAYS

Some might like to argue, but it is usually only when the society/economy is stable when people wants to talk about "moral" because they can afford this "luxury".
And governments/businesses/people would do things that's "moral" in order to SURVIVE.
It all comes back to surviving, but its only about aiming for long term or short term (ok, and medium term).

Is unilateral action a right of a superpower?

Yes it is.
If some weak nation launches any unliateral action, then the superpower (US for now) can embargo them for a few decades, etc if not invade them, and cause them heaps of trouble. But can any single country in this world currently embargo the mighty United Stated of America? I don't think so.

No one can threaten them economically, let alone militarily, so they can do anthing they want.

They can rape your mum once a day and not let you know, and just kill her and burn her because she's a "terrorist". Wait, no. She's in Guantanamo Bay, so you won't know anything that's happened (besides she's in there. Ok, maybe not, since their transport system is so sophisticated).

The above example is only "for example", I don't mean it has happened before, but then, who knows?
It's only that some stupid Americans are dumb enough to photograph their tortures or we wouldn't have known jack.

 

[sam04u]

I'm in awe at the longevity of the posts on such a boring topic.

But, I'll add a swift comment directed at the topic title.

"Yes", whether they choose to utilise it or not is a different topic all together.

As, has been seen in the past, the resources of even a super power can be stressed when they're competing on more then on front. (whether militarily, economically, or technologically).

Basic Terms:

If you don't make alliances. You will be crushed.
Rome lost England to the Saxons (because they were fighting on more then on front. eg; the hitites).

We're getting a repetition of this with the U.S.A, especially since they're losing european support. (France Veto'ed War in Iraq.)

 

[Sonic]

ok just a quote:
"If we have to use force, it is beacuse we are America. We are the indispensable nation" Madeleine Albright (Multitude Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio 2006 pg 8)

why is this the case? what basis is this being utalized with? i really don't agree..

 

[Vahl]

Does a state have a right to use force? A fascinating question, with many potential answers.
The answers, however, are perspective based - that is they depend on the particular constitutional paradigm of which the international society of states has reached consesus, and the actions of the state giving rise to the so called 'unilateral action'.

The Peace of Paris affirmed the parliamentary-democratic model of the nation state (at the same time, as some would argue, that the nation state model itself was under siege by the very innovations which won the so called cold war, and attending epochal conflict of the century). This vested the international society of states with a constitutional paradigm upon which that society was ordered and those states ordered(and order) themselves - that is it gave that model legitimacy. Granted this view, those states which challenge the current models legitimacy undermine the international order and the safety and security of the entire community of states. Whilst it may seem hypocritical for a state to intervene in one conflict but not others, seemingly on the ground of 'human rights' (eg. why Bosnia and Kosovo but not sub-Saharan Africa?), the great states of the world will intervene in the areas of the greatest threat to meet the challenge posed to the international community of states.

etc.