Challenging the legitimacy of international laws of war, the podcast discusses how these laws undercut a nation's right to self-defense, sanitize war, and make it more palatable. They explore the flaws in the conception of international laws of war, the importance of civilian control over the military in a free country, and question the validity of international law itself. The podcast emphasizes the significance of following humanitarian law in all wars and examines the conflict between Israel and Hamas as an example.
International laws of war can hamper a free country's self-defense and make war more palatable for belligerent regimes.
The principle of proportionality in war can cripple a nation's self-defense and hinder their legitimate military objectives.
Deep dives
The Validity of International Humanitarian Law
The podcast discusses the perspective that regardless of the cause of a war, all parties are obligated to fight according to the rules of humanitarian law. It questions whether Israel, while justified in fighting Hamas in self-defense, is bound by international human internal law. The speaker argues that this perspective is fundamentally mistaken and makes war more likely. They argue that dictatorships have no rights and cannot claim self-defense. The podcast emphasizes that the laws of war do not apply equally to free nations and dictatorships. They assert that a free nation has the right to invade a dictatorship if it poses a potential threat. The speaker rejects the principle of proportionality, asserting that in self-defense, necessary actions should be taken to eliminate military targets and threats, even if it results in civilian casualties. They argue that attempting to isolate civilians in enemy territory sanitizes war and emboldens dictatorships. The podcast concludes that international laws of war are fundamentally flawed and mix domestic laws regarding military conduct in war.
The Sanitization of War and the Contradiction of International Law
The podcast challenges the idea that war can be sanitized or made more palatable through the enforcement of international humanitarian laws. The speaker argues that war is the breakdown of civilization and that attempting to impose rules or etiquette on it is incoherent. They highlight that war involves men resorting to murder and that in such a context, rules and agreements have no significance. The podcast emphasizes that the only rational principle in war is self-defense and eliminating the ability of the aggressor to continue attacking. The speaker criticizes the idea that agreements and rules can be made between warring parties, as it assumes that both sides will abide by them, ignoring the reality that the enemy seeks to kill you. They contend that war should be viewed as an abomination and that principles applicable to war should be contextualized within the need for self-defense, rather than attempting to follow international humanitarian laws.
The Role of Domestic Law in Military Conduct
The podcast explores the importance of domestic law in governing military conduct during war. It highlights that in a free country, the military is under civilian control and must follow orders in support of the mission while maintaining humanity. The speaker emphasizes that disobedience to orders can be a threat to a free society and should be treated as such. However, they caution against the content of domestic laws often derived from international humanitarian codes. They argue that these laws can be self-sacrificial and hinder the ability to engage in self-defense. The podcast emphasizes the need for tactical considerations in determining how to treat POWs and utilize military force. Overall, it underscores the importance of domestic law in ensuring the military operates under civilian control but criticizes the content of laws derived from international humanitarian codes.
The Validity of International Laws and Treaties
The podcast questions the validity of international laws and treaties, highlighting that they are agreements among semi-civilized governments to observe certain rules. They argue that international laws are not enforceable like domestic laws, as there is no overarching authority to ensure compliance. The speaker emphasizes that international agreements and treaties depend on each country's self-interest and willingness to uphold them. If a country believes an agreement or treaty is not in their self-interest, they have the right to withdraw. They assert that international laws should not be equated with law as they lack the enforceable mechanisms and coercion found in domestic legal systems. The podcast concludes that international agreements and treaties are only valid as long as they align with a country's self-interest.
In this episode of New Ideal Live, Onkar Ghate and Ziemowit Gowin discuss international laws of war. Challenging the very legitimacy of such laws, they emphasize how “humanitarian” laws of war hamper a free country's self-defense, make them vulnerable to belligerent regimes, and make war more palatable rather than less.
Among the topics covered:
How international laws of war undercut a nation's right to self-defense and whitewash dictatorships;
Why war is legitimate both in response to an attack and to preempt an attack;
Why “humanitarian” laws of war sanitize war, making it more palatable, not less;
How the principle of proportionality cripples a nation’s self-defense;
Why civilians are implicated in war and not to be isolated;
Why a nation should follow principles that serve their legitimate military objectives;
The crucial importance of civilian control over a free nation’s army;
Why international laws as such are unenforceable.
The podcast was recorded on November 14, 2023. Listen to the discussion below. Listen and subscribe from your mobile device on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Watch archived podcasts here.
https://youtu.be/N-oNOjWOkDs
Podcast audio:
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
