International Law vs. War

World leaders and international organizations accuse Israel of violating international humanitarian law. How should we evaluate these accusations? Can there really be international law of war? In this episode on our mini-series on the Middle East, Ziemowit Gowin interviews Onkar Ghate on international law and war.

Subscribe to ARI’s YouTube channel to make sure you never miss a video:
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:

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.

0:00:00 Introduction
0:00:57 International laws against self-defense
0:06:16 Legitimacy of war in response and to preempt
0:08:06 “Humanitarian” laws make war more palatable
0:11:42 The principle of proportionality as crippling
0:17:20 Civilians as implicated in war
0:22:20 Principles serving legitimate military objectives
0:28:46 Civilian control over a free nation’s army
0:36:07 International law as unenforceable

******

******

[DanielArnolf]

I hear some talk about proportionality, Jews in the Middle East: 6.9 million, Arabs: 556 million, that's the real proportionality that matters for Israel.

[ella-srrv]

Thank you for the analysis of international war laws and Ayn Rand’s perspective. However, I would like to point out an additional aspect that Hamas has incorporated into its war doctrine. This includes using civilians not only as human shields for physical protection, but to sway public opinion after an attack. Given their in depth understanding of Western values, Hamas cynically relies on Western countries to invoke humanitarian concerns and promptly stop Israel from executing an effective and decisive response to their repeated attacks. Nonetheless, even a weakened Israeli response triggers each time a massive influx of ‘humanitarian’ aid and funding, which serve to replenish Hamas’s military supplies, as well as for personal enrichment. So, clearly Hamas has successfully developed a winning multi-prong cynical war doctrine, which it uses with impunity. To my knowledge, this doctrine has not been previously used and therefore, is not addressed in the existing war laws. I would much appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

[zibbitybibbitybop]

I still find the entire concept of international law nonsensical, because a law is only as good as the degree to which it is enforced. I don't see the rest of the world besides Israel attempting to do anything about Hamas murdering 1400 Israeli civilians, so how does any so-called law related to war mean anything when terrorists are allowed to flout it like that?

[thomassmart]

people cry out for International Law when it suits them

[IS-xkiq]

Does international law of war apply to the Palestinian Arabs as well?

[jtjwhite]

I never understood the concept of “rules of war” nor “international law”

[BradChapmanvocalpreproducer]

Common sense! Thank you for exposing it.

[leonlawson]

How do you classify the statement;From the river to the sea!😮

[maximusmclogan]

Amazing. Keep it up and God bless. Plain talk about the actual reality.

[Hollis_has_questions]

War is not subject to laws. Good guys would obey them, bad guys wouldn't. Therefore, only after a war can war crimes be assessed, prosecuted, and punishment meted out.

If war law dictates that hospitals/schools are to be war-free zones, then that's where the weaker side will take advantage of such law.

"Proportionality" is a concept straight out of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron": crippling the strength of the stronger combatant so that the weaker combatant is better able to compete on the field of battle. When the aggressor is the weaker combatant — as Hamas is — then the proportionality scheme benefits them; the stronger combatant can never win any war that way, and every terrorist group is "the mouse that roars."

Read Sun Tzu, y'all. The "art" in The Art of War has nothing to do with etiquette.

[mikekl]

Thank you for this interview it clarified the substance of International Law. I want to add that there are two standards one for Jews and the other for non-Jewish. So, International Law forces Israel to fight with one arm behind its back, as a result, a continuous and never ending conflict with no possibility of peace.

[jhljhl]

All is fair in love and war -- they are one and the same.

[nisimmakov]

😂Really?
LAWS OF WAR?=)

RELEASE HOSTIGES!

then we hear u...(Israel)

[fab]

Is there any legitimate worry about use of force that’s more than necessary?

[CrankyHermit]

Framing the issue in this way is contradictory. Rights inhere to individuals, not to groups or nations. Powers are delegated to democratic governments to act in protecting those individual rights. No international authority rightfully exists to bestow rights upon any country, nor to restrict them for that matter. Agreements made between nations and 'enforced' by world courts are paper thin, because power is powerful.

[tinkerbell]

the problem is not the laws, the problem is current misinterpretation of the laws and applying them differentlyto different parties... an expert in international law like Natasha Housdorff might help you clarify this

[Consciousness-Matterloop-vvpi]

Dears, conversation is peppered with false analogies, straw man arguments, oversimplifications, false equivalences, cynicism, and hasty generalizatiotr.For me it's like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube with a hammer – overly simplistic and missing the point entirely:

1. False Analogy: Comparing the regulation of war to controlling a hurricane? The idea that you can have "humane" war is like saying you can have a "gentle" hurricane and that's like trying to play chess in a boxing ring. It's a false analogy that simplifies the complex relationship between international law and the chaos of war, ignoring the potential of legal frameworks to mitigate harm.

2. Straw Man fallacy: The argument that dictatorships like North Korea and Iran have no rights under international law is like saying, "You're so bad inside your house, you don't get to have a fence." This straw man fallacy conveniently ignores the nuances of international sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent that sounds more like schoolyard bullying than diplomatic reasoning.

3. Simplification and Misrepresentation: The idea of "sanitizing" war through law? Oh, sure, because international law is just a Band-Aid for a gunshot wound. This oversimplification and misrepresentation ignores the critical role of international humanitarian law, making it sound as effective as teaching table manners to a lion.

4. False Equivalence : The concept of proportionality in self-defense, especially in the Israel-Hamas context, is treated with skepticism. It's like telling someone being chased by a bear to only run fast enough to keep it interesting but not so fast that the bear feels unduly pressured.This false equivalence, delivered with a hint of irony, oversimplifies the strategic and ethical complexities of military responses.

5. Cynicism Towards International Law: Treating international law as just a gentlemen's agreement? It's depicted as a handshake deal where if someone backs out, the most you can do is wag your finger disapprovingly.

6. Hasty Generalization : The notion that borrowing international law principles in domestic military law is detrimental is like copying answers from a classmate without realizing they're for a different test. This hasty generalization fails to consider the varied and often beneficial applications of such integration.

[lordlorian]

And how do those lows work

For example
Terrorists can do as they please
Ignoring any lows of war
While the other side must obey the pressure …

You never see UN pressure terroris organizations
Never

No pressure on Pakistan
No pressure on taliban
Or any radical islam cult

They ignore monstrosities

But always stand agains those who fight against them

How does it work ?

[AtlasRandGaming]

What do you do when 70% of the population are personally active in support of Hamas? We know this imperially thanks to modern surveillance.

[optimusoptimum]

i would like to enrich it with specific references to laws and protocols:
1. National Liberation Movements and International Law: Under the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (1977), groups fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation, or racist regimes are recognized as national liberation movements. This distinction is crucial for understanding the rights and responsibilities of the parties in conflict, as outlined in Article 1(4) of the Protocol.
2. Responsibility for Collateral Damage: Objectivism's emphasis on individual rights suggests a need to minimize collateral damage, aligning with the principles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), which mandates the protection of civilians and medical facilities in conflict zones (Article 18).
3. War, Rational Solutions, and Objectivism: Objectivism values reason and rational solutions, advocating for exhausting all rational avenues before resorting to force. This perspective is consistent with the legal obligation to adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality in self-defense, as outlined in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I.
4. Use of Force and Protection of Innocent Lives: The right to self-defense is recognized, but it must be balanced with the protection of innocent lives. Objectivism calls for a principled approach to the use of force, ensuring it is proportional and just, and cautions against actions that could indiscriminately harm non-combatants, in line with the principle of distinction under international humanitarian law.
5. Objectivism as a Guide, Not Dogma: Objectivism should be a guide rather than a dogma. Its core emphasis on individual rights and rationality suggests a cautious approach to military action, emphasizing the need to protect innocent lives and pursue rational solutions wherever possible.
6. Appeal to Authority Fallacy: In discussions about Objectivism, referencing Ayn Rand is pertinent and not fallacious, as she is the founder of the philosophy. However, interpretations of her views should align with the philosophy's emphasis on individual rights and rationality.