Should international law be violated in case of repressive regimes?
- Thread starter holoow
- Start date
Naomasa298
Forum Staff
- Apr 2010
- 35,354
- T'Republic of Yorkshire
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.
No. The law should not be broken as a matter of convenience. It should contain mechanisms to deal with violent, criminal regimes.
- Mar 2014
- 8,881
- Canterbury
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.
- Oct 2014
- 392
- Germany
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.
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.
