“…international law is an illusion”, and so it should remain. Sovereign countries have enough interference already from the inept and corrupt United Nations.

“No doubt there will ultimately be a cessation to hostilities between Israel and Hamas, but the terms on which it is reached will have nothing to do with the supposed tenets of international law.”

The hostilities should stop only when Israel has wiped out Hamas. The international loud mouths, who are not subjected daily to rocket attacks on their own dung hills, should certainly have nothing to do with how and when Israel is satisfied that all threats from Islamic lunatics have been removed.

The idea of international law is rubbish: a backdoor way to world government and unacceptable interference in sovereign nations.

The United Nations has always been a “sorry spectacle”; it should be disbanded, but it does not need replacing with a “world legislature” which could never be democratic, suited only to world-government demagogues.

Bagaric rightly puts down “Trendy notions such as rights and intentions...” and “…the figment of an international lawyer's teenage yearning for certainty and order in a world…” But his “democratic” (as if) world body is the stuff of nightmares.

Leigh,
I respectfully suggest you read what the author said and comment accordingly You quote him out of context and therefore dishonestly.

You are entitled to your opinion but you don't seem to grasp the issues the author is making. He is talking about the morality or lack there of both sides.In the process he is offering a more equitable alternative. Hence "lessons for us all..."

You have stated your pro Israel attitude without clear delineation several times using the very moral subterfuges he is attempting to address.

This not an argument about who is right or wrong but a moral one. So far your posts don't objectively examine that aspect. So far you’re your comments are simply nay saying.

I’m sure you have something more useful to say on the topic.

A fully democratic world body is the ideal end point for those interested in justice for all individuals on this planet.

The problem is: how do we get there?

Adding a representative chamber onto the UN at this point would be worse than useless. The chamber would immediately be at loggerheads with the rest of the UN due to the different logic of its creation - The representative chamber being built on the logic of democracy and individual participation, the rest of the UN built on national governments and state interests.

The UN right now is structurally unsound, but it can be fixed.

Here's my suggestion: First, we need to remove the control national governments have over it. This can be done by replacing the ambassador with (up to) 5 democratically elected representatives. Following the reform, the GA would be built on the logic of democracy and individual (though completely uneven) participation.

This reform does not require a change to the UN Charter, cannot be vetoed, and does not require 2/3 majority in the General Assembly. It can start small with just a few states that have the courage of their democratic convictions. Later, other states can come on board.

Once the GA is close to fully democratic (at least 2/3rds), the body can then use its existing powers to create a second chamber along the lines Mirko is suggesting.

Once these two democratic chambers are in existence pressure can be put on the P5 to not only give up the veto but dismantle the Security Council entirely. The GA could use its budgetary powers, for example, to put pressure on the P5.

We would then have a world bicameral system similar to the US, Australia and other state democracies.

I imagine the whole process would take a generation or two to complete. In addition, given the way the creation of national governments helped drive the creation of national communities, I suspect the process itself would help to spur a genuine international community.

The idea of some Democratic world UN type body is beyond rediculous and contains assumptions of cultural arrogance almost beyond description.

Hidden in that call is the assumption of Secular Humanism.

SORRRRRRRY... most of the world outside the small 'West' does NOT subscribe to that idea.

ALSO.... the differences in culture and habits..food..dress.. etc etc.. would mean that nations like Japan (whale meat) Korea (dog meat) will all feel victimized by any decision which impacted their culture.

I'm only amazed by how stupid and silly this naive idealism can really get.... most of you calling for 'One World' government just don't have the slightest clue.

Mr. Bagaric, you kept my attention till: “there is only one principled method …that exists at the domestic level: democracy.

Have you really experienced democracy? If so please tell me where.

So far all democracy I have experienced here is exactly the same as the one I have experienced in Mussolini’s Italy

Polycarp,

The UN already exists. It's purpose is written down in its Charter. All states have signed up to this charter. I am not proposing to change this.

All I am proposing is that we fix the broken governing structure of the United Nations so that the body can work as intended. That is, as laid down in the Charter. Which doesn't mention clothes, dog meat or even whale meat.

Changing the governing structure of the UN whilst leaving untouched its purpose is the very opposite of cultural arrogance.