People talk about “international law” as if it’s some kind of global rulebook floating above countries, enforced by a neutral world government. It isn’t. International law does not exist on its own. It only exists because sovereign nation-states choose to sign treaties and then write those obligations into their own domestic law.

There is no global parliament passing binding laws. There is no global police force or army. The UN cannot arrest anyone. The International Court of Justice cannot compel compliance unless a state has already agreed to be bound. Even the ICC only applies to countries that opt in, and the biggest powers simply do not.

What really exists is power. Superpowers like the United States and China sit at the top of the system and ultimately decide which rules matter and when. They enforce norms selectively through economic pressure, military force, or by ignoring rulings they dislike. No court can override them.

Smaller countries operate inside spheres of influence. Their sovereignty is real but conditional, shaped by alignment with a dominant power bloc that provides security and access to markets. Step outside that protection and international law will not save you.

The problem is that many so-called international law experts sell grandiose theories about a rules-based global order that simply does not exist. They confuse aspiration with reality and treat press releases as enforcement. International law is coordination, not authority, and pretending otherwise just obscures how the world actually works.

International law is international delusion.

What makes it even worse is that the UN represents a bunch of dictators who see the UN as nothing more than another tool to subvert democracy, human rights and true justice. And the CCP is gradually buying them all off so the UN can rubber stamp it killing a few million Taiwanese.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law



International law is an independent system of law existing outside the legal orders of particular states. It differs from domestic legal systems in a number of respects. For example, although the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, which consists of representatives of some 190 countries, has the outward appearances of a legislature, it has no power to issue binding laws. Rather, its resolutions serve only as recommendations—except in specific cases and for certain purposes within the UN system, such as determining the UN budget, admitting new members of the UN, and, with the involvement of the Security Council, electing new judges to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Also, there is no system of courts with comprehensive jurisdiction in international law. The ICJ’s jurisdiction in contentious cases is founded upon the consent of the particular states involved. There is no international police force or comprehensive system of law enforcement, and there also is no supreme executive authority. The UN Security Council may authorize the use of force to compel states to comply with its decisions, but only in specific and limited circumstances; essentially, there must be a prior act of aggression or the threat of such an act. Moreover, any such enforcement action can be vetoed by any of the council’s five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Because there is no standing UN military, the forces involved must be assembled from member states on an ad hoc basis.

MattE wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 11:55am:


Excellent summation, thanks.

Yes, at the beginning of the age of MAD, people aspired to elimate war (for obvious reasons...)

But they weren't prepared to forgo the (in my view) obsolete concept of absolute national sovereignty, in force  since the Westphalian doctrine:

(google):

The Westphalian doctrine, or sovereignty, is the principle in international law that each state has exclusive control over its territory and internal affairs, free from external interference, establishing the modern system of sovereign nation-states with equal standing. Named for the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years' War, it enshrines non-interference in domestic matters and territorial integrity

But the 30-years' war was fought well before the age of MAD.....

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 1:38pm:


A repeat of the OP from MattE.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 6:18pm:

You mean you do not understand.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2026 at 5:55pm:


So, no people or countries then?

When you say world "peace," is that the same peace as your suggestion that the CCP would take back Taiwan "peacefully" by killing anyone who gets in their way? You never came up with an estimate of how many millions of people would die. I think the count is about 100 million Chinese people killed by the CCP so far.

Quote:




What jury? You don't see many people in democracies calling for them to be replaced by single party dictatorships, but plenty of Chinese are calling for real democracy, when they aren't getting run over by tanks. The worst human-made disasters in the history of the world came from our two single party communist behemoths: China and Russia, with he smaller ones only falling short because they would run out of people to kill. The only thing more dangerous than a Nazi trying to kill you is a communist trying to help you.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10^th, 2026 at 8:34am:


Indeed. If you ranked all the countries of the world by how democratic they are, and ranked them all again by how wealthy they are, the lists would look remarkably similar. Even more so if you could capture how long they have been democratic for. Comparing Taiwan and South Korea with North Korea and China gives you a little microcosm of the appalling human cost of communist dictatorship.

You watch what happens when petrol cars become obsolete. A lot of those exceptions will disappear. The "rule" has had consistent results for centuries, though all sorts of upheavals.

Quote:


People don't want power density. They want to get from A to B, and are increasingly choosing electric vehicles.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2026 at 8:30am:


Where did I suggest that?

Quote:


No, it's the peace referred to in  the preamble to the UN Charter:

"We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war......"

Quote:


The topic is international law, not the failure (past or present) of states to ensure prosperity for their populations, as per the UN UDHR.

Quote:


The jury considering Churchill's famous remark : "democracy is the worst form of government" etc, implying good government isn't possible. 

Whereas c 90% of Chinese (a billion people or so) are satisfied with their central government  according to a 2019 Harvard poll, while many democracies are wracked by hyperpartisanship. 


Quote:


Nevertheless, looking forward: the jury is still out re good governance, given the CCPs proven capacity to change course and eradicate poverty at the fastest rate in history post 1990.

Good governance: achieving the principles set out in the UNUDHR. 

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2026 at 8:56am:


Ah...Saudi will have to reinvent its economy.

Indeed, good government must aspire  to  raising the living stbndards of all its citizens, as per the UN UDHR.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 10^th, 2026 at 9:43am:


When you contradicted my claim that the UN represents countries, insisting instead that it represents "aspirations". The CCP for example does not aspire to world peace. They aspire to kill as many Taiwanese people as necessary to conquer Taiwan. Because being responsible for the deaths of only 100 million Chinese people is not enough. You yourself even made the idiotic claim that China's right to start another war was already written into UN law, so if there was a war it would be everyone else's fault. Unfortunately that is the type of evil regime and moronic thought process that the UN inevitably has to represent.

"Aspirations" indeed.

Quote:


The community of nations is still made up of specific nations, most of which are dictatorships that slaughter their own citizens and look to the UN to legitimise that mass murder.

Like the CCP for example. Like you spineless apologetics for future mass murders by the CCP that you want them to commit.

Quote:


And as I already pointed out, you say "peace", but you mean mass murder. The CCP actually aspires to kill it's opponents and invade Taiwan. You claimed the invasion would be done peacefully, but saw no contradiction between that and killing all the Taiwanese citizens who want to stand up for their democracy and human rights. And you pre-emptively blamed everyone else for the war that would inevitably result because, according to you, the UN has already magically decreed that China has the right to invade.

Spineless, two-faced communists who promise everything and deliver nothing but death. That is what your "international law" represents.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 10^th, 2026 at 2:16pm:


And if they did, what then? War?

This is why you are a two-faced hypocrite when you declare that the CCP wants peace. What they want is an easy victory, because they are a bunch of cowards. They ran and hid when the Japanese invaded and watched them rape and pillage their way across China. But they will kill millions if they can get away with it. They are up to about 100 million so far.

Why do you think that simply telling the truth - that Taiwan is indeed an independent nation from China - justifies the CCP going on another mindless killing rampage? And how do you make the mental leap from that to the CCP seeking peace?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11^th, 2026 at 4:21pm:


The point is that the CCP are two-faced hypocrits. They, like you, say they want peace, but in the same breath threaten Taiwan with war for acknowledging the simple and obvious reality that Taiwan is a separate, independent country to China.

Also, they are already responsible for killing about 100 million Chinese people. Don't you think it's time they stopped?

This is the danger of international law in the hands of morons, cowards and dictators like the CCP.

TGD,
Quote:




TGD,
are you now or have you ever been
a member of the communist party?

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2026 at 6:22pm:


The reality: every leader who visits Beijing confirms the one China principle, the most recent example being South Korea's president Lee.

Do try to keep up. 

Quote:


Too funny coming from you: you ran away when your contradiction between struggling workers and struggling consumers was pointed out to you (in the 'price of a cuppa' thread); and now you are conflating debate  with contradiction.

Quote:


I bother because I'm using you to educate people who read these posts.

Today I realized you are like Iran's deluded leaders who are claiming the protestors in Iran are 'enemies of God'; the leaders genuinely believe the message of the Koran requires  conversion of the world to Islam.

And likewise you claim an economy based on Western 'individual freedom' principles is the only possible desirable system, and must be entrenched around the whole world; note the CCP has repeatedly said they are not interested in exporting 'socialism' to any country. 

That's why I want you to  cease your delusional  'China threat' nonsense; the Chinese people are now quite capable of looking after themselves - while not threatening anyone other than delusional DPP ideolgues who want to tear the nation apart. 

Re your passion re Taiwan: you insist the islanders must be free to decide to secede from the Motherland because some of them are likewise delduded by 'individual freedom/rights' ideology. 

Saw the final of Ken Burns' 'The American Revolution" last night; the concluding words were "the revolution to create good government on earth is still ongoing"...no kidding - the tension between individual freedom  and the need for for good governance and common prosperity aka the general welfare (mentioned in the preamble to the US Constitution)  is exploding in the US as we speak.


Quote:


Already addressed; it's time you examined your delusions re 'individual freedom' and the baleful consequences for good governance.

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2026 at 10:13am:


Of course not: I'm interested in the Chinese miracle (according to the World Bank) achieved since 1990.

Naturally you ignored the rest of my post - a speciality of yours, owing to your intellectual incompetence resulting from blind 'individual freedom' ideology.   

But I don't expect you to acknowledge it: you are the delusional fellow who claimed (a year or so ago) there isn't a (cost of) housing crisis in Oz.

Quote:


Of course not, unlike you I love life. 

Nor would I support  Oz resources defending delusional losers.

Dear TGD,
are you a 5th column Chinese stooge?

Quote:


Easy to do. Simply refrain from starving them to death with idiotic policies as the CCP had been doing.

Quote:


Yes. Read the rest of it. Did you fail statistics?

Quote:


LOL. How many Chinese people died between the initial outbreak of covid and when the CCP stopped jailing journalists for trying to warn people about it?

Quote:


Correct. The One China Policy does not reflect reality.

You are being evasive. Would you, or would you not, support the CCP killing yet more people, if that is what was needed to stop the Taiwanese from speaking the truth - that Taiwan is a separate and independent country from China?

Quote:


You also offer spineless apologetics and weasel words for mas slaughter of your fellow human beings. You have elevated the "one china policy" to a religion, on the altar of which you would sacrifice the truth, peace and the lives of your fellow human beings.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 12^th, 2026 at 11:49am:



You are lying as fluently as skunk piggy, sadroo and the rest of the deranged mob.

Are they being rounded up for being "long-time residents of the US"?? No. They are rounded up  because there is a warrant for their arrests.


Why do you mongs distort everything, lie about everything, misreresent everything?
Because you are congenitally dishonest in the service of your deranged ideology.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 12^th, 2026 at 12:18pm:


How many is that, little pink?

And how many total?

Frank wrote on Jan 12^th, 2026 at 11:58am:


Now you have got that off your chest, let's read on - while waiting for bobby to say something intelligent.

Quote:


Your error: I said Trump is cruelly rounding up people who are long-time residents of the US, who many local people are attempting to protect.

I didn't address the reason for the warrants - namely,  the egregious effects of economic dysfunction of mainstream neoclassical economics within and between nations.

The US could easily retain all those "illegal" residents, in a well- functioning US economy; and further, the motivation behind illegal immigration itself would disappear in a well functioning global economy.

Please use your brain to examine the CAUSES, not the consequences, of social and economic dysfunction.

Quote:


My purpose is to relieve you of your delusions re 'individual freedom'; and consider the tension between self interest and the general welfare.

Quote:


Neat.....you answered your own question.....totally unaware of the tension between 'freedom' of self-interested individuals,  and achievement of 'the general welfare' which is the necessary role of good government.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 12^th, 2026 at 1:02pm:


So the same number of people died in China during the initial outbreak in China as in New York, as well as the same number that died in the US? As well as the same number elsewhere?

How many is that, little pink?

Are you trying to say that the US had the same death rate as China, even before covid actually reached the US?

Quote:


And how many of those 2 million Chinese people died between the initial outbreak, and when the CCP stopped jailing journalists for warning people about the disease?

And why are you being so evasive on this?

Quote:


I am not the one claiming to know how many Chinese people died of Covid. I think the CCP put more effort into covering up the initial outbreak, then covering up their mismanagement of the initial outbreak, than trying to prevent it or figure out how many people died.

My point is, this is not good management. Once more, people died because of the CCP's incompetence and self interest. All that the CCP has learned from the 100 million or so people it has killed is that it does not need good governance, merely good propaganda. You yourself are a good demonstration of how well that propaganda is working. You swallow it without question. It never even occurred to you that the CCP would by lying to you about the number of deaths, and lying to themselves about the number of deaths, and as a result of their lies and cover-ups have no way of even knowing how many people died. They followed the exact same pattern as with the great Chinese famine. The CCP's lies and propaganda are still killing the Chinese people. And the CCP is still lying to itself and to the Chinese people about how well it is doing. Even your constant efforts to compare it with the US death toll has eerie parallels to the propaganda from the Great Chinese Famine. Even while tens of millions of Chinese people were starving to death, the CCP still managed to convince them to feel sorry for the poor hungry Americans. You are falling for pretty much the exact same propaganda and lies the CCP has been spinning for decades.

Your BS about the vaccine is completely wrong. Putting the lockdown in place before the Chinese people travelled home for lunar new year, rather than after, or even earlier, would have probably saved millions of lives. You are the one harping on about the CCP's crackdown after the horse had bolted and how wonderful it was that they welded people into their apartment buildings to stop the virus spread. Now you do a complete backflip and say that is not the important response, waiting for the vaccine is.

The important thing to remember is that the Chinese Communist Party does not believe in god governance. It believes in good propaganda, and will tolerate incompetence and lies, even if the consequence is millions of dead people. The important thing to remember is that the CCP does not believe in peace, it believes in killing as many people as it can to invade Taiwan, and will change the very definition of the word peace to make that happen. And you will eagerly swallow their load.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 12^th, 2026 at 12:18pm:


They are different statistics little pink. Hence the different words used to describe them.

Were you trying to contradict me little pink, or just trying to find a less unflattering statistic? Because you seemed to be implying I was wrong when I said the median chinese wage is less than half of our unemployment benefits. Let me know if you need me to explain what that means.

Was it you who insisted the CCP was promoting common prosperity by deliberately keeping wages low to force the Chinese people to work harder?

If 10% of the population is earning $9,990,000 per year, and the rest are earning $1000, the median salary is $1000, and the average is $1,000,000. Your little switch from the median to the average merely covers up the fact that most Chinese workers earn less than half of what our unemployment benefits are by pretending that China's mega-rich (and there are plenty of them) are sharing their income with China's workers.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 10:28am:


The point is the trend.

In 1980, the Western world had high consumption levels and  poverty rates c.10-20%, without the increasing extremes in wealth evident today, whereas in 1980, with China's population soon to reach 1 billion people, extreme povery affected over 90% of the population:

(google)

In 1980, China's average income varied by sector, with rural per capita net income around 155 to 191 yuan (c. 2 USD) while GDP per capita was approximately $195 USD, reflecting a largely agrarian economy just beginning its market reforms under Deng Xiaoping, a stark contrast to later decades.

Today Western  nations still typically have poverty rates c. 5-10% (but with unaffordable housing for average wage earners in Oz), while in China the poverty rate has decreased from 90% to around 17% today.

(google)

China has drastically reduced extreme poverty, declaring rural extreme poverty eliminated by its official $2.30/day (2017 PPP) standard in 2021, though using higher World Bank lines reveals lingering poverty, with around 17% below $6.85/day (2017 PPP) in 2021

Which nation is likely to reach common prosperity sooner - Oz (or the US) or China?

Let's have a look in a decade, the answer should be clearer by then. 


 

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 2:10pm:


Wrong on both counts, poverty is decreasing at a faster rate in China than in the West, while Jobseeker payment is increasingly sinking below the poverty-line in Oz, so any comparison with the mean wage in China is irrelevant - which IS the point.

Meanwhile, given the thread's topic, you refuse to discuss the tension between individual and universal 'rights', demonstrating your mental incompetence. 

fyi:

1. 'rights' don't exist except as defined in law.

2. eg, the'right' to pursue happiness (preamble to the US Constitution) is little more than a desire possesed by all individuals; personal desires aren't 'rights'. 

3 The UN Universal Declaration of Human (ie the collective) Rights envisions and defines the conditions required for peace and prosperity for all.

3. 'Communism' was born out of a desire for a better life for all, amid the social injustices of the Industrial Revolution.

You can discuss all these propostions, or confirm your mental incompetence to address these fundamental issues underlying the impetus to international law.    

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2026 at 1:02pm:


Your mental incompetence confirmed; you can't  discuss international law even when a discussion plan is laid out for you.

Deplorable. 

For 200 years, US law ruled South America.
'The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823, was a foundational U.S. foreign policy warning European powers against further colonization or interference in the Americas, asserting the Western Hemisphere's separate sphere of influence, while the U.S. pledged not to meddle in European affairs, establishing a policy of non-intervention and a principle of distinct New World and Old World political systems. It declared the Americas closed to new European colonies and viewed any such attempts as hostile acts, becoming a cornerstone of American strategy for asserting dominance in the hemisphere.'

It has moved forward to real US colonies with Cuba, Colombia and Mexico next in line.  The police are the Pentagon and the judge is Mr President.

"I thought it was very rude and disrespectful," Trump told reporters before leaving. "None of the other speeches people gave were funny at all, quite frankly. They should be ashamed of their speeches. My speech was very funny. Probably the funniest speech ever given here at Davos, from what people are saying. It really was something. All of the smart people were laughing. The leaders who laughed will be rewarded, but the people who didn't laugh will pay a heavy price, believe me. America will remember."

Trump's speech, which interlaced clever humor with scathing attacks against European leaders, made the rounds on social media, drawing a mixture of praise and criticism. The White House later made it clear that refusal to laugh would bring consequences. "The president is seeing who his allies are," said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. "Nations with leaders who are not willing to laugh at perfectly delivered jokes will learn an important lesson."

At publishing time, Trump had stated that seizing any territory controlled by leaders who didn't laugh at his jokes was vital to the U.S.'s national security.