tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post2113374139779593051..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: international law as a social contractJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-12078928112369129782010-08-20T13:10:21.335-07:002010-08-20T13:10:21.335-07:00This is eerily reminding me of the sanctions resol...This is eerily reminding me of the sanctions resolution.OregonDebaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-4332526587111101922008-02-21T20:57:00.000-08:002008-02-21T20:57:00.000-08:00The UN values nonproliferation, which, it can be a...The UN values nonproliferation, which, it can be argued, is within the US's best interests, as is global stability, as is the good will of the international community, as is a coordinated counterproliferation effort. The Aff world is exactly <I>why</I> the UN doesn't work: because its most powerful member keeps undermining it. Get rid of the undermining pre-emption, and half the UN's legitimacy problem is solved.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-29000046260238731642008-02-21T15:56:00.000-08:002008-02-21T15:56:00.000-08:00Jim,a large part of my neg case deals largely with...Jim,<BR/><BR/>a large part of my neg case deals largely with the authority and justice of the UN as a whole (not just the US)... so how would i attack/rebuild an aff that claims the US government has an obligation to do whats best for its citizens? also, how would i rebuild from the premise that UN isnt very effective in the world and cant enforce its laws and that diplomacy doesnt work? (i.e. darfur, north korea, iraq,rwanda)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-3853885408651606652008-01-24T20:03:00.000-08:002008-01-24T20:03:00.000-08:00Or instead of using international law, you could u...Or instead of using international law, you could use customary international law, which is "rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way." Basically, its law thats sort of implied because of general consensus. However it is referenced several times by the UN charter so it is valid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-60010484229171168232008-01-10T18:13:00.000-08:002008-01-10T18:13:00.000-08:00I don't see how international law is ligitamate. I...I don't see how international law is ligitamate. I mean, the main body of law internationally is the UN, but since the US has the security council veto (as do others,) it's kinda irrelevant, right? THere's no coart system, no standardised body agreed to by all states that is binding. It seems almost it is more of a tool of manipulation by certain powers than a system of law at all-- escpecially since by definition the big 6 are favored. Also, every other form of international law is really nonbinding-- they have no way to actually stop a militarry action-- and thus these laws are not "established by some authority and applicable," as many valid definitions of law include. All it would take is this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law) to preempt this entire argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-66192669621281881312008-01-10T15:39:00.000-08:002008-01-10T15:39:00.000-08:00do you think this would work for aff:because the U...do you think this would work for aff:<BR/><BR/>because the US has the obligation (Reflected in the social contract) to safeguard its citizens from harm, therefore its just for them to use military force against military threat? <BR/>its just because the US intends to save itself. the US primary focus is to look out for its own interests <BR/><BR/>can you suggest any articles that stress this topic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-82136363047630357722008-01-08T20:33:00.000-08:002008-01-08T20:33:00.000-08:00If you have access to an online database, do an ad...If you have access to an online database, do an advanced search for "counterproliferation" and "international law."Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-52744945234459902592008-01-08T20:26:00.000-08:002008-01-08T20:26:00.000-08:00Ok...Do you have any good ideas for evidence deali...Ok...<BR/><BR/>Do you have any good ideas for evidence dealing with this idea...[for my aff]<BR/><BR/>This is where I am still stuckAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-9382522843745482372008-01-08T19:47:00.000-08:002008-01-08T19:47:00.000-08:00Depends. If you're on Aff, you may not want to dw...Depends. If you're on Aff, you may not want to dwell on international law, unless you feel you can make a strong case that it justifies preemptive action. (There are sources that will support that.) In that case, your value would be justice, and your criterion international law.<BR/><BR/>That would also work on the Negative. It sets up a clear standard--violating international law could be more clearly defined than, say, violating Just War Theory, or Pacifism, or a moral framework like Utilitarianism. All of those come in many flavors.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-10539052366297160242008-01-08T19:44:00.000-08:002008-01-08T19:44:00.000-08:00what would you suggest as a v & vcwhat would you suggest as a v & vcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com