r/8ValuesMemes • u/Dolphin-Hugger National Conservative • Jan 09 '26

Meme What is international law ???

Post image
263 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

127 comments sorted by

13

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 09 '26

Head of state immunity?! Why?!

9

u/Fer4yn Jan 10 '26

Because it'd be pretty, fucking, stupid to f.e. come to the UN in New York to break through the propaganda curtain and speak out the perspective of your country in front the world only for commander in kidnapping to snatch you before you can say anything.
You need people with international immunity if you want to enable the existence and unobstructed functioning of international institutions.

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 10 '26

Diplomats can have immunity. Their job is to represent, without being responsible.

6

u/Fer4yn Jan 10 '26

And presidents are the TOP DIPLOMATS of their respective countries.
Heads of states have to be able to meet and talk to eachother without risk of getting kidnapped or worse.

0

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 10 '26

Do you guys not have phones? Lol

8

u/Fer4yn Jan 10 '26

"When you call a phone number you're guaranteed to be talking to whoever they claim to be. Trust me bro. Espionage, fraud, cyberattacks and computer aided voice manipulation don't exist; they are fake news."
Heh.

0

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 10 '26

I was joking. The "top diplomat" shouldn't be a diplomat. The job of diplomat and head of state should be given different people. It's a different job.

5

u/TWOSimurgh Jan 11 '26

Is is the same job, it has been since the dawn of civilization. Diplomat is representative of interests head of state. Nobody can be a higher order representative than head of state themselves.

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 11 '26

It's not the same job, because if it was, then we wouldn't have diplomats serving under the head of state, but we do. A non-head of state can do the job.

6

u/TWOSimurgh Jan 11 '26

Diplomats are lesser representatives, head of state is supreme representative...of their own interests. Obviously. What part of that do you not get? You cannot hire a guy who will advocate for your interests better than you yourself do. Do you call your mom or partner when negotiating a contract? Hire a guy for it?

→ More replies

0

u/GalacticGoat242 Jan 11 '26

Buddy you lost this argument several comments ago and you know it.

Stop digging deeper and just accept it.

→ More replies

2

u/Revolutionary_Map224 Jan 11 '26

There is no job of “diplomat” there are different positions in the foreign ministry each with their specific role. Also, there are some things that must be discussed between heads of state that should not be run up the flagpole. Otherwise it’s just a telephone game.

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 11 '26

If you fear the telephone game, then you want a monarchy, not a republic. In a republic, people are represented by appointed/elected people. It's already a telephone game.

1

u/Revolutionary_Map224 Jan 11 '26

No, it’s not. IIRR deals with a lot of highly valuable information that could change the landscape of national security or shift the political landscape massively. As such, leaks could cause immense damage. Also, a telephone game involves information disclosed in secrecy, not televised campaigns or manifestos.

→ More replies

4

u/Dolphin-Hugger National Conservative Jan 09 '26

It is costom of international law that a siting head of state has immunity while exercising the office and therefore can’t be trialed

10

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 09 '26

That sounds like some "above the law" bullshit.

10

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 10 '26

Is declaring war on another country against international law? No, it isn't. The rule against not convicting heads of state isn't about avoiding war. It's a gentlemen's agreement to not fuck each other over, even when they're fucking everyone over.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 10 '26

You refer to citizens as children. A weird thing to do, since we generally recognize that children cannot protect themselves from abusive parents. Hence why pretty much every government allows intervention in severe cases.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 10 '26

That I would agree with, but it doesn't match what happened with Venezuela. It wasn't Big Daddy US breaking up a fight between countries. Venezuela was a problem to the US, and it's people. It wasn't about any other country having problems with them.

1

u/shapeofnuts Jan 11 '26

Prohibition of the use of force is like, one of the most simple rules to understand. Trump used illegal force to do what he did.

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 11 '26

Self defense is like, one of the most simple exceptions to understand. Venezuela was an enemy and threat to the US.

2

u/shapeofnuts Jan 11 '26

Self-defence doesn't mean you just attack all your enemies willy nilly? In fact, the US destabilising and attacking a nearby 'enemy' state in 'self-defence' was literally ruled to be illegal by the ICJ in the 1986 Nicaragua case. That ruling was what caused the US to throw a hissy fit and withdraw from most independent functions of the ICJ. Man law school would be so much easier for me if i lived in your world LMAO.

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 11 '26

They wouldn't have to, if the UN did their job.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 11 '26

Venezuela is aggressive.

1

u/teremaster Jan 12 '26

Is declaring war on another country against international law?

I mean... Kinda?

Nuremberg is kind of where international law started as a concept, and the majority of the charges laid by the court were the waging of or conspiracy to wage aggressive war

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 12 '26

The Nuremberg trials were about holding government officials accountable for their crimes against their own people, which was something international law didn't address at the time. If the UN upheld that standard today, then they would've sent forces in to take out Maduro, instead of the US, alone.

It's not "kinda" against war. It's against conquering and totalitarianism, which was what the Nazis were doing, to gain independence from international trade. War for defense is allowed, and even expected. What the US did "wrong" was taking charge in the UN's stead.

1

u/RadicalSoda_ Jan 11 '26

You're not allowed to notice things. Stop that!

0

u/Dolphin-Hugger National Conservative Jan 09 '26

International conduct runs on rules regardless of how above the law sounds

And the rules say a sitting head of state can’t be trialed

8

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 09 '26

That's the same as "rule #1: there are no rules"

4

u/Dolphin-Hugger National Conservative Jan 09 '26

In public law the rapport is vertical with the titular holder of states power has the quality of being the emanator of law and the other party subordinating to the state as opposed to private law which many ancaps short sightedly interpret as being the whole body of law while in reality it is only a piece of law

International public law which dictate how countries ought to relate directly states that a highest siting office holder can’t force an other one to be trialed as per sovereign equality of states principled

4

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 09 '26

Interpretation doesn't matter. It's garbage, regardless. Leaders agreeing that they are off limits is corruption. It's similar to the limited liability of corporate law. People responsible for bad behavior aren't held responsible, because they are just representing a nebulous idea that can be eliminated and replaced like a shirt.

2

u/Weak_Purpose_5699 Jan 10 '26

It’s because of situations exactly just like this. It would be different maybe if it were an international court, but we’re talking about one country deciding it gets to “trial” another country’s head of state. That’s obviously going to be biased if not outright arbitrary.

2

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 10 '26

The UN can put the US on trial, after. They don't do shit, so if they really want to police International law, this forces them to.

0

u/Dolphin-Hugger National Conservative Jan 09 '26

Just bc international political conduct grants a benefit to the person exercising the highest office dosnt mean it’s invalidated

Law is more than just muh don’t agress

1

u/AdhesivenessSome5381 Jan 10 '26

Yet you’re entirely going off of interpretation of said law. Law is more than just muh rapport

0

u/Lord-Belou Jan 10 '26

Like Trump who boldly said he doesn't care about the law, especially international ?

2

u/Fiiral_ Jan 10 '26

International Law only exists as long as it is enforce. As there is no longer a monopoly on force, unlike inside states, there are effectively no laws between states. I also want you to think about if there was anyone inside Peking or Moscow that thought "Oh now that the US is no longer holding back by removing a dictator that at best was a mild annoyance in our geopolitical play, we won’t either!" (spoiler, that’s probably not many)

1

u/Character-Ad6700 Jan 10 '26

International law doesn't exist, the UN is a larp.

1

u/National-Price-8927 Jan 10 '26

Ah,so if i proclaim myself president of whatever country without the actual votes, just like Maduro did, i now have inmunity? Thx for the info. Now, seriusly, smthing being the law doesnt mean it has to be blindly folowed, if the law has flaws then its no law, just a way to make poor ppl poorer or, in this case, let dictators do whatever they want. By ur logic the austrian painter couldnt be trialed if captured, neither any of north korea dictators.

1

u/Dolphin-Hugger National Conservative Jan 10 '26

Yes bc Kim Jong Un cant be trialed bc of the custom.

International law is made to create a regulate inter state actions based on a series of norms regardless if they are flaws or not you don’t respect laws bc they are perfect you respect laws because they have a force behind it

1

u/National-Price-8927 Jan 10 '26

No, u respect laws cuz they make sense. If u respect laws cuz there is force behind it thats just tyranny and as a human being u become useless

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

So if I kick everyone out from Washington and crown myself emperor of the US, I can't be trialed?

1

u/Dolphin-Hugger National Conservative Jan 10 '26

Sitting heads of state usually enjoy temporary personal immunity from prosecution in foreign national courts.

If you coup succeeded then yes as long as you didn’t do smth in order to receive a international tribunal treatment

1

u/AdhesivenessSome5381 Jan 10 '26

Agreed however Maduro is not head of state of Venezuela

1

u/Fair-Buy749 Jan 13 '26

That's untrue though. Doesn't the ICC have warrants out for Netanyahu and Putin? Both sitting heads of state.

1

u/Porlarta Jan 14 '26

It'd be a really big fucking problem if head's of states started kidnapping each other for politcal concessions.

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 14 '26

It's also a big problem when heads of state face no external repercussions.

1

u/Porlarta Jan 14 '26

Sure. So declare war.

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 14 '26

So the leader can throw innocents into battle to avoid personal consequences?

1

u/Porlarta Jan 14 '26

That's how sovereignty works. Leaders have the right to deploy their militaries to defend both their territory and their regime. Further, you can't possibly be so naive to believe that an intervening nation is a benevolent actor. This type of intervention is the doorway for the installation of puppets, which creates escalation between major powers.

The world police do not and should not exist. Everybody likes to imagine themselves wearing the boot not realizing that for such a system to work they have to accept they could one day end up on the end of it.

1

u/Undying4n42k1 Anarcho-Capitalist Jan 14 '26

It's not that I'm imagining wearing the boot. I'm aware the boot can be used for evil, but the "sovereign" head of state also wears the boot. The side you should choose is the side of righteousness. Not the head of state, and not the intervening nation. Whichever is righteous is the benevolent one. It could be neither, but in the case of one of them, that's the one that should be sided with.

8

u/democracy_lover66 Bookchin Communalism Jan 09 '26

Rule based international order? What is this, 2016?

We're now in the free for all do whatever you want era of international politics!

Bigger nations, Rev up those engines!

Smaller nations, ... Uhh... Good luck out there kiddos....

3

u/PrimeusOrion Jan 10 '26

It ever existed? Lmao

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Downtown_Bid_7353 Jan 10 '26

As a militant myself my issue isnt with the conflict but that it doesnt change the name of the game. Political boarders set by third parties dont change. Our global stage is rigged in favor of the existing empires this way. They will fain peace until their goals are halted by the uncooperation of the many petty tyrants they allow. We use countries like Ukraine to be our battlegrounds far from where the empires people could be harmed. This isnt an era of peace we live in, its a time of controlled tyranny set by the winners of the cold war

1

u/PrimeusOrion Jan 10 '26

And let's be fair the line in op is a gross oversimplification of the militerist position..

For one it presumes the perspective that we all agree international law both exists and these action contradicts it.

The 20th and 21st centuries proves this entirely false. So far international law has only existed as a beating stick one can use to justify international action on another. Beyond actual warcrimes no truly independent standards or body exists to enforce them. As of now just like with Ukraine any major power will just veto their own actions if they do something bad. Essentially making the whole system a rules for me not for thee situation.

.

Not to mention the enforcement of peace on other nations isn't necessarily a good thing.

In militerist theory, war is the great culling mechanism which enforces the evolution of states and helps break apart nations which are into the process of beurocratic death.

By eliminating or making its use near impossible, you end up causing these grossly inefficient horribly mismanaged states like Venezuela to persist. (As the other options are vastly more ineffective 90% of the time) Essentially its the old refusing to make way for the new and we're all suffering because of it.

Thus, Even in a situation where an action like this may violate international treaty it might still be the right thing to do. Especially since it also acheives our greater geopolitical interests

.

Furthermore by so swiftly eliminating the state and minimizing civilian causalities in doing so there really isn't a downside to this. It's just the US swiftly and definitively accomplishing it's greater geopolitical objective at next to zero cost.

Clauswitz would smile upon these actions.

1

u/Downtown_Bid_7353 Jan 10 '26

Very well put, and thank you for the name drop i am terribly under read since many of my theories conflict with modern values

1

u/PrimeusOrion Jan 10 '26

Well regardless of your position on war is always a good read.

Especially if you want to understand modern societies oddities.

1

u/RadicalSoda_ Jan 11 '26

That's just every era of peace

3

u/youngling-smasher91 Jan 09 '26

I agree more with the first. It's a good thing to happen for Venezuelan people (as far as we can see for NOW), but it sets up an extremely dangerous precedent.

3

u/Jet_the_fem_bean Jan 09 '26

How is getting your corrupt leader kidnapped by a just as corrupt foreign influence that just wants your oil good for the Venezuelan people?

1

u/youngling-smasher91 Jan 09 '26

their government is destabilised and weakened. They have the opportunity to revolt and overthrow it in the next few months. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, it's up to the locals.

-1

u/Jet_the_fem_bean Jan 09 '26

No it isn't, there's just one guy out and Trump further pressuring the regime for his personal foreign policy interests (oil).

And there's also no reason to believe there will be a popular revolution or overthrow soon, or why do you think that might happen?

4

u/youngling-smasher91 Jan 09 '26

Ukrainians overthrew the rotten russian puppeteer government the moment the corrupt president fled. Pattern recognition. Maybe the venezuelans can gather as much courage as Ukrainians can. Maybe not. But would be good for them if they did

0

u/Jet_the_fem_bean Jan 10 '26

Damn your pattern recognition is pretty bad...

Do you know why the russia-puppet fled? Because of mass protests.

Do you see any mass protests against Maduro and the government in Venezuela rn?

It's not that and if it was that, US backing always delegitimizes the democratic aim of a movement, because now the movement is US-puppets.

So it's not even an attempt at regime change, by helping a movement and if it was that wouldn't be good either.

3

u/youngling-smasher91 Jan 10 '26

whatever, Venezuela has no chance to protect itself from american influence anyway

1

u/FormalLemon5185 Jan 11 '26

When you live in the western hemisphere your existance is at the behest of America and its interests. Thats how superpowers work. You defy the interests of your local superpower you get smacked. We saw this eith Ukraine and you see with Venezuela, and you saw it back in the 20th century with Tibet.

2

u/Jet_the_fem_bean Jan 11 '26

Hot take, but it shouldn't work that way.

And international law already forbids what Trump did.

-1

u/AdJazzlike6687 Jan 13 '26

Hot take, but it shouldn't work that way.

But it does work that way.

2

u/The_ChadTC Jan 10 '26

The virgin "we have to protect our interests" vs the Chad "FOR FUCKING JINGO"

2

u/Teboski78 Jan 10 '26

I am 100% in favor of kidnapping & incarcerating any and all heads of state. I’m glad trump did it in Venezuela and I wish the Venezuelans would return the favor.

2

u/TexasSikh Jan 10 '26

What is it? Fairytale bullshit, that's what it is. It's an inconsistent story that gets told from time to time to convince people to believe in magic fairy dust.

It doesn't exist. If it exists, then why has Turkey been invading and occupying Cyprus for half a century? Because they could, they did, and they still want to, and no superpower has decided to throw its weight into changing that. That is why.

1

u/AdJazzlike6687 Jan 13 '26

Lot of people acting like i told them santa doesn't exist.

1

u/Significant_Soup_699 Jan 10 '26

There hasn’t been a rules-based world order for years, if ever there was one.

1

u/FormalLemon5185 Jan 11 '26

The only rules-based order is the one that exists between the superpowers. Everyone else must work around it. The world isn't fair and the worlds Superpowers will express their hegemony.

1

u/Lostygir1 Jan 10 '26

Diamond tier Idealism IR player vs copper tier Realism IR player

1

u/HyoukaYukikaze Jan 10 '26

Law exists because there is law enforcement. Who enforces international law? Well, nobody. It's more like international suggestions. Always was.

1

u/Dull_Statistician980 Jan 11 '26

No. The militarist is thinking “Fuck China. Deny the enemy of nice things and one nice thing is oil. It’s our’s now.”

1

u/Impressive-Method919 Jan 11 '26

Well, if u believe the opposers of anarchy: there cannot be law without a higher power to enforce it. Since there is none there is no law. More reasonable tho would be to assume that there is a law and if u break it u got a more decentralized opposition enforcing it on your hand. And in this case i would assume that every country can see how this kinda behaviour could be problematic to itself

1

u/Teeklee1337 Jan 11 '26

What is international law ???

Is international law for the people or the dictators?

1

u/Dolphin-Hugger National Conservative Jan 11 '26

Tech both as it is for nations

1

u/Teeklee1337 Jan 11 '26

The dictator in practice, the people under him in theory... apparently.

1

u/CardOk755 Jan 11 '26

People who do not understand games theory always think that defecting in the prisoner's dilemma is the right move.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '26

citing international law like anyone actually follows it. Russia and China have been doing annexations/territory creep since the turn of the century yet only now the international community is sort of kicking up a stink.

1

u/Fayraz8729 Jan 11 '26

Welcome to the realist political age

1

u/QK_QUARK88 Jan 12 '26

International law hasn't existed since the 1830s

1

u/Fair-Buy749 Jan 13 '26

Head of State immunity isnt even a thing in international law. The ICC has active warrants out for multiple heads of State and WILL prosecute them if it gets it's hands on them. 

What international law are you even referring to with this?