The world's majority of international law position is then as now, in my opinion true: that is if not more military justice themselves decide the fate of nations, then it should be decided by the United Nations.
that international decisions are not just and loving are all concerned, but also bring masses of disadvantages such as benefits, rarely achieve the ideal compromise for a reason in the rush to respond to the expectations and conflicts in order to prevent further vigilantism.
This is not always possible. This is also not in conflict about the state of Israel, but as a law does not lose its validity claim that someone violates the other hand, a decision by the United Nations as long as international law, as he is not abandoned - and a military vigilante contrast to international law.
The wars and the terrorism against Israel, when someone would see disadvantaged by a law or a ruling, and would therefore in arms against the perceived or actual beneficiaries . Rebel
The legal positivism is the fundamental decision for the political, legal, therefore civil dispute, including civil toleration of disadvantages in the knowledge that the disadvantages would outweigh military vigilantism.
can for this very positivist view indeed be argued that it is the world's majority, but as soon as a party to the conflict does suffer directly, it tends to be evasive legal concepts such as "natural law" or religious, in short, intrinsically moral legitimation, which may indeed have height, but no beyond mere intuition and their advocacy beyond general applicability, could justify their step in the military justice themselves, as is the Middle East conflict for decades reality.
The legal positivism is no guarantee of inerrancy or justice, which is why every law on the one hand to redeem or reform remains to critically, on the other hand, should be an incentive to do justice to it in the best possible way if there is interest in their preservation.
why should Israel be especially Israel and the critical decisions of the United Nations, particularly as Israel can divert their state certification to claim only the decisions of the United Nations, not about the "Land of the Fathers" and similar idioms have all the appropriate emotional, not legal weight.
is highly visible at all, choice of legal positivism, that he is driven to abuse, because it is instrumentalized for conformity and subservience. Therefore, the civil resistance be granted legal protection, ie non-violent resistance is not punishable as a resistance against the state, but individual and collective human rights.
Unless so humiliated Palestinians by the Israeli state and violated rights view, they should go the way of civil resistance. But for the sake of mere denial it would be counter-productive, but should his emphasis on negotiations with the goal of peaceful compromise for mutual benefit as an alternative to continued mutual hostility, violence and destruction.
would Finally, failure of legal positivism because the legislation is undemocratic, but they wanted to act only for the benefit of democracy if it were flawless and perfect, would advance no democracy or either the right or Social wait in perfection , but can work only. Why must the right of the United Nations are considered international law because international law can not be fairer in the weapons programs are competing nations.
-msr->> Diskussionen.de
0 comments:
Post a Comment