New answers tagged

0

the international doctrine about the right of self rule for indigenous people has gain prominence before WWII. In the 1st WW, the British empire conquered Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, ending 400 years of Turkish rule over the land. The newly formed League of Nations issued a mandate for the British administration of the territories of Palestine and ...


7

There is a simple question and also a more complex question. The simple question is why most states are not willing to accept the 'right of conquest' in the case of Israel. The more complex question is why the West Bank is not legally considered now as part of Israel. I will try to answer part of the complex question, since parts of it cannot be overlooked ...


2

Yes, generally speaking, for one country to support armed groups in another can certainly be a violation international law. However, in practice, what can be effectively done in response may be limited by politics. Such actions are formally illegal, but I cannot find a clear example of meaningful redress under international law. See for example Nicaragua v. ...


1

Is it legal? I assume it isn't. At least one organisation or the other "advices" to refrain from some acts. "Legal" isn't applicable to international relations. A country does what it wants, only restricted by what it thinks other countries will do in response. Once proved doing so, can anyone take actions for doing it. Yes, by the ...


15

Since the end of WW2 and the start of decolonization the international community has been quite reluctant on 2 directly related items: Occupation of other countries' territories, i.e. colonization. For example, the fact that the UK is still sitting on Diego Garcia is more might than right. Redrawing of borders. That includes cases where the borders, ...


11

This is more of a postscript to Erwan's answer (which I believe is the most pertinent point). As well as moral acceptability, there is the question of practicality. Prior to WWII most countries had enough to worry about trying to feed themselves and develop. Two things happened following WWII that allowed the international community to promote stability (...


52

The general philosophy of post-WWII international order is that the inhabitants of a territory are entitled to self-determination. While there are still many political and historical obstacles to the general application of this principle, it is clear that any kind of military conquest contradicts this principle: it is simply not morally acceptable anymore to ...


20

It seems the Stimson doctrine was interpreted more general than you interpret it. The phrasing there just says 'result of aggression', and Israel clearly used aggression (as in military force) during this war (as did the opposing countries). It might be considered a just war, so Israel is allowed to defend itself. But they still can't conquer new territories....


Top 50 recent answers are included