DFK! wrote:
What does?
Generally, the failure of one party to adhere to it. Even that, however, depends on what the aggrieved party wants to do about it. They may abrogate the treaty themselves, they may decide it doesn't matter, or they may call on other nations to impose some consequence or try to impose it themselves.
The problem, of course, is that a great many treaty abrogations are less than clear-cut. Countries have different legal systems, and while there are international conventions the bottom line is that international institutions to enforce treaties and other "international laws" are a joke and really depend on the willingness of nations both to adhere to their decisions and to enforce them on others.
Ultimately unless you have a world government, these institutions are weak at best, and at worst are simple a forum for political maneuvering.
The real question is not what validates a treaty, but what makes it valid?
DE wrote:
Actually yes, it is a good idea, if you use the theory you seem to be espousing of, essentially "to the victor go the spoils." Showing mercy and compassion whilst simultaneously taking land via iron fist don't go well together, and only serve to undermine all foreign policy. This is ok if you are a super-power out to control the known world, a la the Roman Empire under the Caesars; but not in the modern age where national borders are essentially set.
That was my point. My theory isn't "to the victor goes the spoils" because there are no spoils. Once you conquer the area, it's your responsibility to take care of it. You need to come up with a way to make the people there into regular citizens of your country
The other problem with "To the victor go the spoils" is essentially that the spoils may not be worth enough to win the victory in the first place. Sometimes you have to fight anyhow, to stop that guy from attakcing you over and over again, in which case part of the "spoils" is the elimination of a threat, but the point is that everything has to be weighed in a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. War is just a tool. If you're thinking "Where and how should I go to war to get maximum benefit?" you're already on the loosing side of the power curve because you're assuming war is the best option. By the same token, if you're thinking "What's the best peaceful solution to this problem?" you're also already losing because you're assuming a peaceful solution is necessarily better for you than one that involves war. Lots of people like to argue that's the case, but history has shown that not only is it not the case but it can lead to a longer and worse war anyhow. Appeasement of Germany is the classic example. In some cases merely creating the perception, even accidentally, that one is unwilling to fight has provoked aggression. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait is one example. Accidentally leaving South Korea out of a list of nations in a speech that the U.S. considered it important to defend gave Kim Il Sung the impression that he would not have to fight us.
Quote:
Keep in mind, I'm not advocating any one position over another. I'm pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in our dealings with both indigenous and conquered peoples in this nation and in others.
I was going to respond to this but I'm a little unclear what hypocrisy you're referring to. I'd also point out that it's somewhat hypocritical of indigenous people in this day and age to want to have it both ways. Avoiding hypocrisy is a good thing, but it's not the end goal of national policy.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
