So why, Mirko, are you in Australia writing this article at your computer when according to your own beliefs you should be on the ground, spoon feeding starving children in Africa?

Why don't you abandon your children and book your plane ticket now? After all, social services would pick the kids up eventually and they'd still have a life a thousand times more privileged than those African kids. That would be the utilitarian thing to do.

It's a thought provoking article, but fatally undermined by the fact the author obviosuly doesn't believe in what he preaches.

I agree with the author about ditching the "doorstep phenonemon" and "acts only" concepts of morality. But brushing aside concepts of rights is going too far.
I believe basic human rights can be upheld in combination with greatest good consequence rationality. I don't see it as an "either or" dilemma.
Conditions in third world countries are about a lack of human rights and our failure to make sure they are upheld and to prevent their abuse.

As for the Hicks case, i think it is more symbolic than anything which is why it has garnered so much attention and importance. The situation represents the worry that we are taken for granted by our favourite ally, for all our loyalty and support and following them into battles, our one simple request - to give a man proper justice or send him home - is basically ignored.

I believe an avenue in which we can make a difference, which is not canvassed.
Some of the problems result from our indulging in war.
International law is reaching sufficient supporters as to become universal and override conflicting rules, jus cogens as Michael Byers in ‘War Laws’ has it.
But much is not so overriding under present agreements.
Recently there has been an intensification of effort to make even the laws so far ratified more flexible providing legal power to the mighty.
In this mind set pre-emptive interference in another country deemed to be a rogue state, the deeming by the one wanting to correct the state imposing democracy , should become legal. This despite the already existing provision that if there is a threat to peace a case can be made to the UN security Council and there argued, organs of the UN looking at such areas.
This type of approach, though engineered, for we were lied to and the media was supportive not informative, has been used in Iraq (some say in the Pacific Islands too). It has resulted in not only loss of life but destruction of infrastructure including farming. That is has produced need for aid which is in short supply.
Sure the occupying powers were meant to make good the damage but as several sites indicate the method became one of Neo Liberal dogma requiring alteration of Iraq laws (illegal-Geneva convention) and benefiting overseas industry, creating massive waste of resources, well, the resources went somewhere but few benefited Iraq.
At present Australia’s position is in favour and quite willing to use contrived explanations for actions which may well not stand legal challenge if brought.
So one thing to make the aid dollar go further is by supporting international law which might serve to curtail the activities of nations such as these. Sure many problems in getting universal agreement and means of enforcement, but the alternative incoming resource shortages (here already?) is not a happy one.
The realist school will say human nature will obviate effort.

AnthonyMarinac:

I was fascinated to see that your obedience to the rule of law excludes all laws that you personally consider immoral. You stated that people are entitled to disobey laws that they consider to be grossly immoral.

My problem is that I consider the income tax and GST laws to be totally immoral, and very damaging to my bank account. Does this mean that I am entitled to disobey them?

On a higher plane, where we once had a simple system of constitutions and laws made in accordance with them, which had been sanctioned by the people in referendums, now we are being assailed by so-called international law, which has no basis at all in the consent of the people. The people did not authorise either the federal or state governments to delegate any of their powers to the United Nations, which is not mentioned at all in the Constitution.

Any suggestion that a referendum giving the UN any power over Australia would have any chance of being approved by the people would simply have me rolling in the aisles with laughter. With India having the same voting power as Nauru, the UN would have to be one of the most undemocratic organisations ever invented, but democracy doesn't seem to have much of a place in the opinion of many modern lawyers.

As far as I am concerned the only important thing in life is the survival of DNA, which naturally leads each person to place a higher value on people closer to them genetically. All other attempts at ethics are simply meaningless vapourings.

At least we only have to suffer the presence of Kirby on the High Court for another two years, after which he will be removed by operation of Section 72 of the Constitution.

Like others, notably Anthony, I want more from the author on 'how to,,,' I could give all my income away, but then I would be a charge on other people. Australia could invite all the world's poor in as economic refugees, but they would still be poor, and so would we be. My own view is that the present system of foreign aid must be accompanied by advice and help in family planning. That is not being done at present. More, I don't believe that any great good can be done quickly: we are looking at changes that need to take place over a generation or two. If I am wrong, perhaps Mirko could advise me.

The biggest problem with development aid is the fickle nature of donations. Programmes with lifetimes of 10 years are instituted, funded maybe three years then scrapped when donor nations decide to change aid priorities. The ‘billions and billions’ in aid noted by Grey has been wasted funding projects that yield no benefit for anyone because they are NOT CARRIED THROUGH TO COMPLETION!

This is not the fault of the aid agencies. This is not the fault of the recipients. It is not ALL due to massive corruption (though some is undoubtedly lost that way) as many will argue. Instead it is more the fault of the donor nations and their lack of commitment to providing aid without strings attached.

Individual donations help but it is mainly used for point solutions- a well, a school, etc. They cannot, however, make a difference to a whole country. That is why individual donations don't necessarily count.

The Millennium Development Goals required the first world nations of to provide 0.7% GDP in development aid delivered to the UN for distribution to requesting nations. In return, the developing nations agreed to ensure the aid was well spent. Funding was at the UN’s discretion and was only for projects that were properly planned and would receive the suitable level of support from the local government. Ongoing projects would then be audited for the UN and donor nations.

Seems a fair deal, doesn’t it? In return for the cash we get a solid assurance that the aid will be used to real benefit, backed up by transparency.

191 nations (including Australia) signed on to do this. Our only requirement was that we pony up with the cash.

We don’t.

It is, apparently, better for Australia to continue to fund the countries that are of benefit to us rather than help everyone. And we are not alone.

Individually we don’t need to give up our pay packets to aid. The UN and the developing world aren’t asking for that. They are only asking for us to live up to our promises.

Not that much to ask is it?