Bob Finally defines international law
I've been waiting for this moment since this
thread. Ever wonder why people keep taking your words and using them in ways you don't mean?
I'm not one to get into definition debates anymore. At least, not since the (second?) greatest blogpost
of the year.
For most definition disputes, pretending to resolve it via conceptual analysis just isn’t very honest. It is more honest to argue about the desirability of various consequences of alternate social conventions.
I think that even if there were some platonic ideal definition of International Law, it wouldn't convince Robert that his stance is wrong. At least, I would hope it wouldn't. At best, it would make him change the terms he uses.
I will say though, the convention "Once something has been approved by the Security Council, It's no longer immoral" is a pretty dismal and awful standard for justification of foreign intervention. The multitude of reasons against this should be obvious (pun intended).