Should international law be violated in case of repressive regimes?

[holoow]

The statement of German Federal President Joachim Gauck make sense.
"Brutal regimes must not be allowed to hide behind the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention."

 

[Naomasa298]

Should it be violated?

No. The law should not be broken as a matter of convenience. It should contain mechanisms to deal with violent, criminal regimes.

 

[Domhnall Balloch]

Gauck's statement is more an attack on realism than it is an attack on international law, which doesn't do much to defend oppressive regimes once all on the Security Council are in agreement. Naomasa has the right of it: law should make provisions to deal with such states.

 

[Perados]

It looks like Gauck is a right wing war monger - nothing you would expect from a former priest.

No, you cant break international law, to fight brutal regimes. - the question would show up, who desites if a regime is brutal or not. And usually does a war like intervention creates more harm and problems as sutch a brutal regime. - just have a look at iraq.
And finally would every regime has to fear to get attacked, without any legitimation. This would make the regimes even more brutal, to ensure their surviving. They would use every tool, and different to syria would they use their weapons of massdistruction.

 

[Perados]

Is it possible to erase double posts?

 

[dagul]

Nothing is violated therein because the International Law itself allows the intervention by one state over the other due to violation of human rights such as in situations of a repressive regimes.