No similar argument is being made here; the US hasn’t made any real pitch about international law to other states, and it’s unlikely there will be much sympathy for the US position.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Violating international law really only matters insofar as it has consequences for people. It is better to live in a world where leaders think aggressive war is illegitimate. The alternative is an even greater nightmare, somehow.
some clarifications in response to replies:
(1) I didn’t write the UN Charter & can’t help what it says or how it works. It’s flawed but it matters to a lot of countries
(2) it’s true the US can veto any collective response. The political costs will come in other ways—we see this w/Russia & Ukraine
You also neglect to mention russia can veto any response as they did on the question of Ukraine while forgetting to mention the General Assembly can override the veto.
That’s not overriding a veto. The general assembly’s powers are different than the security council’s. This means they can convene a meeting and take some other action within their designated responsibilities on the same question, but they can’t compel the security council to act.
It’s not a checks-and-balances system, like the US is in theory; the deck is explicitly stacked for the UNSC. You’re thinking either of uniting for peace, which enables the general assembly to examine a question the security council whiffs, or the US system of Congress overriding a presidential veto
And just to add - you can argue the Trump administration has now used the cover of “diplomacy”
and “deadlines for negotiation” to deceive an adversary twice - first for the Israeli strike (whether DJT really knew or not) and now for direct U.S. military intervention.
Comments
(1) I didn’t write the UN Charter & can’t help what it says or how it works. It’s flawed but it matters to a lot of countries
(2) it’s true the US can veto any collective response. The political costs will come in other ways—we see this w/Russia & Ukraine
You make that statement a lot but offer no substance to it.
and “deadlines for negotiation” to deceive an adversary twice - first for the Israeli strike (whether DJT really knew or not) and now for direct U.S. military intervention.
Hard to see it not coming back on him and the U.S. at some point…