Ineffectiveness of international law towards state conflict
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
International courts are useless.
First and foremost, there are three existing international courts. The ICC, ICJ and the ITLOS have regulations and policies set and binding upon all signatories. However, a state may refuse to follow the rule and will at most receive economic restrictions which it can also impose as retaliation. Take China for example because of its abuse and humanitarian violations the USA banned certain Chinese Companies, in turn, China retaliated and imposed restrictions against the USA the result? Nothing, only mutual destruction which is equal.
China ratified with the UN and ITLOS giving both courts Jurisdiction over China in matters of territory and state concerns. in light of the ratification it is legally binding upon China. However, China's disregard is evident by the fact that it is still currently occupying the West Philippine Sea and even instructing armed officers to harass mere Filipino Fishermen who are unarmed.
Then there is the Security Council which is an organ of the United Nations. Last 2003 the USA declared war against IRAQ under the presidency of President George W. Bush and the entirety of the Security Council was against it but the state exercised its veto powers, disregarded the Security Council, and still attacked Iraq. Another instance is Russia's war against Ukraine wherein the Security Council was also against it but Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council still invaded Ukraine by exercising its veto powers and the worst part? It can't even be brought to the ICJ because of the lack of consent due to the doctrine of state supremacy a country can't be sued without the consent of the aggressor historically the aggressor has always had never given consent to be sued. The veto power system is prone to abuse and renders international courts useless these powers are exclusively conferred upon the permanent members, predominantly powerful nations that often wield them in a manner perceived as abusive, given that these countries are typically the most active internationally, particularly in the realm of armed conflicts and other global affairs.
It is unambiguous and unequivocal that these facts constitute that international courts have no enforcing capabilities hence it is useless and is historically correct that it is prone to abuse.
First and foremost, there are three existing international courts. The ICC, ICJ and the ITLOS have regulations and policies set and binding upon all signatories. However, a state may refuse to follow the rule and will at most receive economic restrictions which it can also impose as retaliation. Take China for example because of its abuse and humanitarian violations the USA banned certain Chinese Companies, in turn, China retaliated and imposed restrictions against the USA the result? Nothing, only mutual destruction which is equal.
China ratified with the UN and ITLOS giving both courts Jurisdiction over China in matters of territory and state concerns. in light of the ratification it is legally binding upon China. However, China's disregard is evident by the fact that it is still currently occupying the West Philippine Sea and even instructing armed officers to harass mere Filipino Fishermen who are unarmed.
Then there is the Security Council which is an organ of the United Nations. Last 2003 the USA declared war against IRAQ under the presidency of President George W. Bush and the entirety of the Security Council was against it but the state exercised its veto powers, disregarded the Security Council, and still attacked Iraq. Another instance is Russia's war against Ukraine wherein the Security Council was also against it but Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council still invaded Ukraine by exercising its veto powers and the worst part? It can't even be brought to the ICJ because of the lack of consent due to the doctrine of state supremacy a country can't be sued without the consent of the aggressor historically the aggressor has always had never given consent to be sued. The veto power system is prone to abuse and renders international courts useless these powers are exclusively conferred upon the permanent members, predominantly powerful nations that often wield them in a manner perceived as abusive, given that these countries are typically the most active internationally, particularly in the realm of armed conflicts and other global affairs.
It is unambiguous and unequivocal that these facts constitute that international courts have no enforcing capabilities hence it is useless and is historically correct that it is prone to abuse.
I'll cite North Korea, if you consider it as a "little" country based on your classification since povery is apparent in this nation.
North Korea has never from the start followed international law despite being a signatory
Syria is also in that classification as a "little" or poor country, it utilizes chemical weapons which is illegal.
Iran, Myanmar and Israel to nameĀ a few.
In your context of wars
The Iraq war, Kosvo War and Libya Intervention.