I dont think so. International law tends to be there for the same reason federal/state law exists in the US: Different jurisdictions. And perhaps in those cases of rebellion when a government is over thrown to the point of lawlessness... then international law will come in handy.

It might be wise to expand on that a little. What would you like to discuss? The accuracy of the alleged facts you present, or their significance, or both?

The content of most of the National Constitutions is plagiarized by International Human rights which thus do not create nothing of new. — Ludovico Lalli

Not exactly. The UN has taken the best - i.e. most progressive, tolerant, inclusive clauses of various constitutions - principles on which people broadly agree - to make up a comprehensive set of rules intended to protect all people from all kinds of persecution and oppression.
The fact that it cannot be applied is a proof of our failure as a species.

A thousand goals have there been hitherto, for a thousand peoples have there been. Only the fetter for the thousand necks is still lacking; there is lacking the one goal. As yet humanity hath not a goal.

But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity be still lacking, is there not also still lacking—humanity itself?—

Thus spake Zarathustra.

The international system is one of anarchy. States are sovereign. International rules, if you can call them that, cannot be enforced. It’s odd that we’d defended anarchy on a global scale, while fear it on any other scale, but here we are.

A single sentence does not make an original post. If it's worth stating, it's worth spending at least a bit of time on spelling out an argument. See How to Write an OP.

A national constitution for the most part pertains to how governments must behave towards their citizens. International law is mainly about how states behave towards each other.

In the end, it is based on a 'gentleman's agreement' between states, in that there is no monopoly on violence that facilitates the enforcement of international law.

Reciprocity, trust, credibility and the threat of armed conflict are important factors in why states choose to behave according to international law.

It's definitely not useless, but it also does not function in the same way national laws do, and it is much more dependent on mutual agreement than coercion.

That last bit is something that seems to have gotten lost on many people during the so-called 'unipolar moment', during which the United States was so powerful that in practical terms it could assume the role of 'world's policeman'. We see now that this was a historical anomaly.

Good point. I don't defend it. I'd like to see the world being a single democratic state.

The point is that the content of International Human Rights resembles the epistemologies of most of the national Constitutions. International Human Rights are pleonastic because they do copy principles that are already within modern Constitutions.

I'd like to see the world being a single democratic state. — bert1

Yes, please!

International Law has no enforcement mechanism. It gets enforced when countries agree to enforce it, and the same law can be ignored when countries don’t care to enforce it. But without the individual countries taking steps to impose the law, international law is more like a suggestion, or guideline among pirates.

So, yes.

If country A doesn’t like what country B is doing, A can get a whole bunch of other countries to agree with them and then together, go after B. That’s the world before International Law. That’s the law of nature.

Or country A can appeal to international law and make a case to the UN and the International Court. But then, the opinion of the UN as a body and the ruling of the International Court, no matter what they say, will mean nothing, unless a bunch of other countries agree to the ruling and go out and enforce the ruling. Which is the same picture of things as before international law.

So yeah, International Human Rights are more of a political talking point, and means to make arguments for and against other countries, and propaganda (for a good cause), than they are something with the force of law.

No country will give up their sovereignty to some outside body like the UN, or like an International constitution of laws and rights.

The only real jurisdiction of International law is outside of national jurisdiction, like the open seas.

In the middle of the ocean, no country can claim jurisdiction, and all have agreed to abide by international law. (Basically all have agreed we won’t fight each other for sovereignty over the oceans, just ten miles off the shoreline.). But there is no police either, none with any teeth to enforce that law. So if country A doesn’t like what country B is doing on the open seas, and the international court agrees country B has violated the international law, you still need some country or group to use their own enforcement power to actually stop country B.

And if country A doesn’t like what country B is doing to its own people, within its own jurisdiction, International Law has even less significance. To enforce international law on a country that disagrees with the ruling, you basically have to go to war with the country.

I can't tell what you are driving at.

There are two Declarations with which I am familiar. One is the Alma Ata Declaration on Health in 1978; the other is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations in 1948.

True enough, and beneficially, the text and thrust of the declarations has been copied into numerous national documents around the world. Why is that a problem?

The problem isn't that nothing "new" is created; the problem is that the text and thrust of the declarations is honored in the breach more than in the observance.

Here are links to the two Declarations:

1948 Paris Declaration of Human Rights

The 1978 Alma Ata Declaration on Health

These declarations are comprehensive, ideal, and sound -- except that the circumstances in so many places make the chances of success in many places like a snowball's chance in hell.

Still, the declarations are worthwhile, if only they are put into effect.

Still, the declarations are worthwhile, if only they are put into effect. — BC

In general agreement with 's observations, I personally think that the OP might (?) be emotively taking a long, roundabout, and maybe scapegoat way of saying that, because the declarations of international human rights are not uniformly enforceable globally, they then are worthless.

To which one reply, the only one that currently makes any sense to me, will be this:

I'd like to see the world being a single democratic state. — bert1

Or else a global democratic nation with a multitude of states, each state with its own ethnicity, culture, sub-laws, etc., such that each state votes for what the global nation’s laws should ubiquitously be. Here, then, there would be a global enforcement of the two declarations you link to, this as would be decided upon by the states' citizens.

Or else a global democratic nation with a multitude of states, each state with its own ethnicity, culture, sub-laws, etc., such that each state votes for what the global nation’s laws should ubiquitously be. Here, then, there would be a global enforcement of the two declarations you link to, this as would be decided upon by the states' citizens. — javra

Indeed, I'm not rigid on the details. Nations are so-interdependent now it makes little sense not to have some system of global democratic representation.

Indeed, I'm not rigid on the details. — bert1

:grin: :up: Neither am I.

lol what world have you been living in where this already isn't the case?

I can't vote in American elections, French can't vote in the UK elections, there are no global elections, there is no global rule of law enforceable by a global police force, multinationals take advantage of differing local laws to avoid taxes, people in dictatorships and oligarchies are not represented, wars are possible because there is no global rule of law, it's impossible to deal with climate change because there is no global rule of law.

Well my man, that's what happen when a state steals everything from the people... the people look to the state to do everything... to solve their problems... I know I've said it before. And you're presenting the perfect person I was talking about, hence why you want to VOTE...

Mighty big contribution of you towards the end you desire.

Power relegated to voting and fiat money.

In the case you intend the International System of Human Rights as a common denominator for the Nations, it is possible to state that the latter is useless. In the presence of common and dispersed epistemology, the epistemology of the ordinary and contemporary Constitution, there is no meaning in producing an International System of Human Rights. Basically, I'm stating that most of the contemporary Constitutions are characterized by same principles. The International System of Human Rights is redundant and pleonastic.

lol what world have you been living in where this already isn't the case? — DifferentiatingEgg

It goes by the name, "planet Earth".

Power relegated to voting and fiat money. — DifferentiatingEgg

Yup. Power relegated to the people. Not just some at expense of others, but all.

I'm here guestimating you disagree. In which case what in your view ought power be relegated to?

I'm assuming that whatever your answer is, it will include power to you at the expense of others. But I'm open to being wrong.

The International System of Human Rights is redundant and pleonastic. — Ludovico Lalli

Right. So is the truth that the planet ain't flat (and quite a few other affirmations out there). Your point being ...

Power is within a system of expectations. Basically, power is within the law and the usage of law. I intend the epistemology of the National Constitution as competitive and exhaustive. If you intend War Law and, for example, Maritime Law as something that must exist under the form of international law, it may be acceptable. However, the International System of Human Rights has to do mostly with the citizen and his capabilities within the borders of the State. It is not possible to instrumentalize War Law and Maritime Law at the point to conceive the latter as a sort of pre-condition or veiled justification for the production of an International System of Human Rights. The principles of the National Constitution are valid and exhaustive. There is no, at my sight, a way to justify in empirical and pragmatic terms the existence of an International System of Human Rights. I cannot ascribe utility to the System of International Human Rights because of the aprioristic presence of the National Constitution.

Basically, power is within the law and the usage of law. — Ludovico Lalli

Not one iota. Power is strictly in the enforcement of the law. Human laws are in effect nothing more than dictums, statements - which as statements can be used in any number of ways (such as lawyers and judges make use of these statements). But without any power of enforcing such human law, the law of itself becomes or else is powerless and so impotent.

In case you did not know, if you want to reply to a specific post, go to the bottom of the post and you'll see an arrow pop up. Press on that arrow and the post will be mentioned in your post. If you want to make reply to a specific statement in another post, highlight that statement with a mouse and then press on the "quote" button with pops up.

In addition, the International System of Human Rights has not a natural duty holder (enforcer). A duty holder of the International System of Human Rights would be in natural contradiction with the duty holder of the National Constitution, namely the State. In legal terms, the International System of Human Rights is subversive towards the State.

In legal terms, the International System of Human Rights is subversive towards the State. — Ludovico Lalli

That's only if the state in question is beholden to the international community. If it is, that's probably a result of a treaty of some sort, or they took a loan and they can't pay it back.

The solution is to build a giant nuclear arsenal and a bunch of missiles.

lmao voting and fiat money isn't power...

And on the contrary... I'm laughing at such a notion of power because you're capable of more, every human is.

Well my man, that's what happen when a state steals everything from the people. — DifferentiatingEgg

What's what happens?

the people look to the state to do everything... to solve their problems... — DifferentiatingEgg

I certainly do, some of those problems that I can't solve on my own anyway. What kind of problems are you thinking of?

Mighty big contribution of you towards the end you desire — DifferentiatingEgg

Oh, I see. I think that's sarcasm! Sure, of course one vote is very little. As Churchill said, democracies are the worst system except for all the others. I do a little bit towards the bigger problems, but not much I admit. I'd like a different electoral system, first past the post is really bad.

Power relegated to voting and fiat money — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by those two. What other kinds of power do you have in mind?

Don’t you see that you and your frienss could go to some untamed bit of land and make something of it of your own determination? Even with people at odds on this Forum, we could all just decide to get up and move somewhere... but States have us by the balls. We are little more than domesticated tools for its disposal. States monopolize power away from its constituents.

Don’t you see that you and your frienss could go to some untamed bit of land and make something of it of your own determination. Even with people at odds on this Forum, we could all just decide to get up and move somewhere... but States have us by the balls. — DifferentiatingEgg

There's not enough room! All the bits are taken aren't they? States don't own most of it though, it's privately owned. I'm not sure why you blame the state more than you blame private interests. Also dictatorship-states are rather similar to private sort of 'barons' I suppose.

Have you managed to find a free bit of land somewhere and set up your own sphere of influence there?