That’s the point I was making. International Law is a smoke and mirrors charade that lip service is paid to but is otherwise ignored by everyone unless it’s convenient.
IE needing to justify a Military intervention. Or hammer political opponents whether domestically or internationally.
I see it in the arguments here as well. People arguing about international bodies trying to take over via international laws none of them voted for.
But then in the next breath. Demanding political opposition be tried for various offenses under slightly different international laws than the laws they were decrying. So that begs the question then. Is international law tyrannical? Or just the ones that you don’t find convenient?
In summary. International Law is ignored unless convenient
That’s the point I was making. International Law is a smoke and mirrors charade that lip service is paid to but is otherwise ignored by everyone unless it’s convenient.
IE needing to justify a Military intervention. Or hammer political opponents whether domestically or internationally.
I see it in the arguments here as well. People arguing about international bodies trying to take over via international laws none of them voted for.
But then in the next breath. Demanding political opposition be tried for various offenses under slightly different international laws than the laws they were decrying. So that begs the question then. Is international law tyrannical? Or just the ones that you don’t find convenient?
In summary. International Law is ignored unless convenient