No, waging a war of conquest is a fundamental right of any sovereign state. That doesn’t bear directly on a question as to the prosecution of a genocide.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
UN Charter doesn’t abridge the natural rights of sovereigns. The UN Charter is also not a binding document apart from governing the internal workings of the United Nations. Maybe make sure you know anything about a topic before making yourself look foolish.
My point is, sovereign states are things we made up while “fundamental rights” are things that apparently are just properties of those things that we didn’t add.
It’s all just bullshit trying to justify power hungry assholes wanting to increase their web of influence (over people who don’t want to follow them) to the people whose lives and well-being they need to risk to extend their power.
And yeah, evidently there isn’t anything to discuss if you can only reply to a specific question with a link to a lecture series about the broad topic. Though I know you dodged the question because you can’t use logic to get to that point, you either believe in “fundamental rights” or you don’t and picking at that thread is more likely to lose support than to gain it because the right you are arguing for essentially says states have the right to go kill people in neighbouring states if they want to take them over, which was largely rejected after WWI and even more so after WWII when the colonial empires started realizing “hey maybe it’s not ok to rule all these other countries for our own benefit”.
This comment isn’t for you anyways. It’s for people who read what you said and got a feeling of, “this doesn’t sound right” but weren’t able to put their finger on exactly why.
What the fuck are you on about the charter is absolutely legally binding, and binds nations to decisions of the Security Council which has repeatedly stated that wars of conquest are illegal.
Chin up. Just because it’s the right of a nationstate doesn’t mean it’s accepted. Wars of conquest have been almost universally denounced in the post-WW2 period. Treaties and mutual-defense agreements have been structured in the post-war period to forestall any such wars and have largely proven successful at doing so.
No, waging a war of conquest is a fundamental right of any sovereign state. That doesn’t bear directly on a question as to the prosecution of a genocide.
Patently false.
UN Charter Article 2, paragraph 4:
UN Charter doesn’t abridge the natural rights of sovereigns. The UN Charter is also not a binding document apart from governing the internal workings of the United Nations. Maybe make sure you know anything about a topic before making yourself look foolish.
Wtf even is a “fundamental” or “natural” right of a sovereign state?
You know, whatever the
abuserstate says it is.Here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8D95DEA9B7DFE825
If you don’t have that concept firmly established as a basis for more complex ideas, there’s nothing for us to discuss.
My point is, sovereign states are things we made up while “fundamental rights” are things that apparently are just properties of those things that we didn’t add.
It’s all just bullshit trying to justify power hungry assholes wanting to increase their web of influence (over people who don’t want to follow them) to the people whose lives and well-being they need to risk to extend their power.
And yeah, evidently there isn’t anything to discuss if you can only reply to a specific question with a link to a lecture series about the broad topic. Though I know you dodged the question because you can’t use logic to get to that point, you either believe in “fundamental rights” or you don’t and picking at that thread is more likely to lose support than to gain it because the right you are arguing for essentially says states have the right to go kill people in neighbouring states if they want to take them over, which was largely rejected after WWI and even more so after WWII when the colonial empires started realizing “hey maybe it’s not ok to rule all these other countries for our own benefit”.
This comment isn’t for you anyways. It’s for people who read what you said and got a feeling of, “this doesn’t sound right” but weren’t able to put their finger on exactly why.
What the fuck are you on about the charter is absolutely legally binding, and binds nations to decisions of the Security Council which has repeatedly stated that wars of conquest are illegal.
https://www.phe.gov/s3/law/Pages/International.aspx
It does to the nearly 200 signatories of its charter.
Fuck that’s depressing.
Chin up. Just because it’s the right of a nationstate doesn’t mean it’s accepted. Wars of conquest have been almost universally denounced in the post-WW2 period. Treaties and mutual-defense agreements have been structured in the post-war period to forestall any such wars and have largely proven successful at doing so.