New Civilizations (2nd Era, OOC, Always Open )

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

Darn.

>Expressing dissatisfaction that committing genocide is indeed a bad thing

I can't tell if you know I'm meming and you're just playing along rly well, or if you genuinely think all non Christian's want to massacre Christian's xD

[Reatra]

I mean it's not that "modern" morals and ethics didn't exist, people were still people, especially in places like Europe where until 20 years ago actual totalizing powerful states didn't exist.

That said, the Imperium's argument is clearly one imported from the modern era, which falls apart when you realize that non of the context for our international laws exists in this timeline.

Actually I explicitly didn't import any international law into the discussion, save the law of nations, which is an outgrowth of the law of nature. And you'll be hard put to say that the law of nature didn't exist at this time, for it is a fundamental axiom of any society bereft of widespread murder, genocide, savagery, and a thousand other iniquities.

But you do you boo.

yeah I agree with you? (well idk if I agree with what youre considering natural law but yeah overall)

In that case the folks arguing for it are the ones who imported the modern-day laws

[Alaroma]

>Expressing dissatisfaction that committing genocide is indeed a bad thing

I can't tell if you know I'm meming and you're just playing along rly well, or if you genuinely think all non Christian's want to massacre Christian's xD

I’m playing along.

Embracing the Romans unlocks irony levels some considered to be.........unnatural.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

As a lawyer of international law, this argument thoroughly interests me. If you guys want any expert opinion, feel free to ask.

And there's also the fact that, afaik, there isn't really a precedent for this, right? Like there hasn't been an international meeting on human rights or whatever lol.

Nah, that's the problem. In our world, international law has been created by a few hundred years of precedent, customs and treaties. Not only the contents, but also the way international law works is entirely based on what has been agreed between nations, whether actively or through custom.

If you believe law forms from some universal truth, then of course, that does not matter. What is right now is right in the past, and in any alternate history scenario. If you believe in what we call positivist law, meaning that the only law is created by humans, then it really matter. From a positivist perceptive, there is no formed law of nations in this RP, so it's basically a wild west. A positivist will even have trouble applying our formative ideas of customs and treaties, while a naturalist will have no problems with that.

Funnily enough, we have an even more complicated situation. G-tech obviously applies part of our modern understanding of law, but also chooses not to apply our notion of sovereignty in the same way we do. While Plzen applies our modern understanding of sovereignty, at least in the way we used it before the second world war.

As a lawyer of international law, this argument thoroughly interests me. If you guys want any expert opinion, feel free to ask.

So question: would it be immoral to genocide the Arabian peninsula of Aksumite Christians?

I think you misread what I said. I am a lawyer. The field of ethics is unknown to me. I know what the rules are, whether they are just is of no concern to me.

(Kidding, lawyers actually think about ethics and morality a lot. It would be immoral yes.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Hahahaha, great to see an actual naturalist v. positivist debate on here.

You guys should have been there for the Nuremberg trials.

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

Hahahaha, great to see an actual naturalist v. positivist debate on here.

You guys should have been there for the Nuremberg trials.

Ah, those were the days... You know I argued there - yeah. I was the asshole defending Eichman. Oh you should have been there...

[Reatra]

Hahahaha, great to see an actual naturalist v. positivist debate on here.

You guys should have been there for the Nuremberg trials.

time for my radical centrist take: imperium is bad and commonwealth is lowkey kinda shit

[Reatra]

Hahahaha, great to see an actual naturalist v. positivist debate on here.

You guys should have been there for the Nuremberg trials.

Ah, those were the days... You know I argued there - yeah. I was the asshole defending Eichman. Oh you should have been there...

edgy

[G-Tech Corporation]

G-tech obviously applies part of our modern understanding of law, but also chooses not to apply our notion of sovereignty in the same way we do.

Certainly. The examples of our history in the modern era argue quite eloquently against respect for the concept of absolute national sovereignty. Individuals possess, unequivocally, rights independent of whether or not individual states recognize those rights. To hold a standpoint contrary is to return us to 1947, and Viktor ICly isn't prepared to accept the acts that would be legally permissible in such circumstances.

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

Ah, those were the days... You know I argued there - yeah. I was the asshole defending Eichman. Oh you should have been there...

edgy

Lol. Nah, I just don't believe in execution is all. Though no way to get around it in this century... Maybe once I'm large enough I can build a prison and stop having to execute murderers

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Actually, let me share with you the two solutions to the Nazi problem, from a naturalist and a positivist standpoint:

The problem is the following: after the second world war, the Nazi defence for their crimes was that there was no law that prohibited genocide in Germany. In order to try them, a solution to this had to be found.

At Nuremberg, the Allied nations decreed that there indeed was an unwritten law banning genocide, and that the Germans were bound by that unwritten law, even if their national law did not allow for it.

The Germans themselves, however, who held their own trials, claimed that all Nazi law had been created illegally, therefore Weimar law still applied, and the Holocaust was therefore just murder on a massive scale, as banned by the criminal code from before Nazi rule.

[Bortslovakia]

Whatever you find most convenient, really. A TG might be best shared between us, but I have no objection to any methods, really - save perhaps carrier pigeon

Aight, let me go get some dice and I'll tell you how the first few war months go ok?

Would be neat if someone could work out a basic modifier system for this kind of thing in the future. Nothing too complex, especially since it'd be used like once in a blue moon.

As a lawyer of international law, this argument thoroughly interests me. If you guys want any expert opinion, feel free to ask.

I'd love you hear your thoughts on it. I'm a student of international relations, so I've been looking at this more through the lens of principles/concepts than accepted law. Would be interesting to see the other side of the equation.

>Expressing dissatisfaction that committing genocide is indeed a bad thing

I can't tell if you know I'm meming and you're just playing along rly well, or if you genuinely think all non Christian's want to massacre Christian's xD

Lowers pitchfork Aww but you promised!

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

G-tech obviously applies part of our modern understanding of law, but also chooses not to apply our notion of sovereignty in the same way we do.

Certainly. The examples of our history in the modern era argue quite eloquently against respect for the concept of absolute national sovereignty. Individuals possess, unequivocally, rights independent of whether or not individual states recognize those rights. To hold a standpoint contrary is to return us to 1947, and Vitkor ICly isn't prepared to accept the acts that would be legally permissible in such circumstances.

Victor and Bruno agree on that. As do you and I, I believe.

[Alaroma]

Certainly. The examples of our history in the modern era argue quite eloquently against respect for the concept of absolute national sovereignty. Individuals possess, unequivocally, rights independent of whether or not individual states recognize those rights. To hold a standpoint contrary is to return us to 1947, and Vitkor ICly isn't prepared to accept the acts that would be legally permissible in such circumstances.

Victor and Bruno agree on that. As do you and I, I believe.

And most certainly does Andrew.

[Reatra]

Actually, let me share with you the two solutions to the Nazi problem, from a naturalist and a positivist standpoint:

The problem is the following: after the second world war, the Nazi defence for their crimes was that there was no law that prohibited genocide in Germany. In order to try them, a solution to this had to be found.

At Nuremberg, the Allied nations decreed that there indeed was an unwritten law banning genocide, and that the Germans were bound by that unwritten law, even if their national law did not allow for it.

The Germans themselves, however, who held their own trials, claimed that all Nazi law had been created illegally, therefore Weimar law still applied, and the Holocaust was therefore just murder on a massive scale, as banned by the criminal code from before Nazi rule.

Sure, but I don't think the Nuremburg or overall Nazi example really applies here as far as I can tell

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

DW borts - were keeping in on the downlow

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Hahahaha, great to see an actual naturalist v. positivist debate on here.

You guys should have been there for the Nuremberg trials.

Ah, those were the days... You know I argued there - yeah. I was the asshole defending Eichman. Oh you should have been there...

Eichmann was tried in Israel though.

I'd love you hear your thoughts on it. I'm a student of international relations, so I've been looking at this more through the lens of principles/concepts than accepted law. Would be interesting to see the other side of the equation.

I'll write something when I have a keyboard with a functioning s and w key.

Actually, let me share with you the two solutions to the Nazi problem, from a naturalist and a positivist standpoint:

The problem is the following: after the second world war, the Nazi defence for their crimes was that there was no law that prohibited genocide in Germany. In order to try them, a solution to this had to be found.

At Nuremberg, the Allied nations decreed that there indeed was an unwritten law banning genocide, and that the Germans were bound by that unwritten law, even if their national law did not allow for it.

The Germans themselves, however, who held their own trials, claimed that all Nazi law had been created illegally, therefore Weimar law still applied, and the Holocaust was therefore just murder on a massive scale, as banned by the criminal code from before Nazi rule.

Sure, but I don't think the Nuremburg or overall Nazi example really applies here as far as I can tell

It does, though. The arguments are the same. Is a sovereign state free to do with their own people as they please, or are there rules?

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

Darn, you caught me. I thought I might slide that past you

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Darn, you caught me. I thought I might slide that past you

Crimes against humanity was my master thesis, you shall not pass.

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

Darn, you caught me. I thought I might slide that past you

Crimes against humanity was my master thesis, you shall not pass.

That's so cool!!! Omg omg

[Bortslovakia]

Victor and Bruno agree on that. As do you and I, I believe.

And most certainly does Andrew.

Honestly most people in the modern day probably agree with this sentiment to some extent. Though the various interventions of the late 20th, and 21st century have undoubtedly left a bad taste in the mouths of some, it's common sense that a state acting outside the reasonable expectations of the international community is not inherently protected by the concept of sovereignty. The issue here is that there is no international community to regulate the situation via treaties and accepted decorum.

Pat most certainly agrees with the stance Viktor's posited, but he's also afraid of the Imperium using injustice as a blank check to act as it pleases. There aren't many states willing and able to step up and say "You're right, but you can't do it this way" to Viktor right now. In fact, it's probably just Hibernia. I'm still not sure what I intend to actually do, but the situation is a zero sum gain, so nothing isn't a viable option. Plzen and I like to throw shade each others way a lot, but we both agree on the power of precedent.

[Alaroma]

And most certainly does Andrew.

Honestly most people in the modern day probably agree with this sentiment to some extent. Though the various interventions of the late 20th, and 21st century have undoubtedly left a bad taste in the mouths of some, it's common sense that a state acting outside the reasonable expectations of the international community is not inherently protected by the concept of sovereignty. The issue here is that there is no international community to regulate the situation via treaties and accepted decorum.

Pat most certainly agrees with the stance Viktor's posited, but he's also afraid of the Imperium using injustice as a blank check to act as it pleases. There aren't many states willing and able to step up and say "You're right, but you can't do it this way" to Viktor right now. In fact, it's probably just Hibernia. I'm still not sure what I intend to actually do, but the situation is a zero sum gain, so nothing isn't a viable option. Plzen and I like to throw shade each others way a lot, but we both agree on the power of precedent.

Well it’s all about what precedent, isn’t it? If she gets away with this, and someday later an author looks at a particular minority group it doesn’t like in full view of other authors and nations, and decides “You know what? Genocide is badass.” And starts slaughtering innocents. So ultimately the case is “what is the worse precedent?” Let’s be honest with ourselves, people will intervene and go to war no matter what. What matters now is if humanitarian intervention is legitimate, because I don’t believe for a second a stronger state won’t take what it wants regardless.

[Khasinkonia]

Unfortunately, it looks like I won't be able to join this rp. Thanks for the help y'all. Best wishes and luck.

[G-Tech Corporation]

we both agree on the power of precedent.

Precedent: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Edit: It is pretty amusing to me, really, since I had intended for Viktor to be a villain via pragmatism. But my immediate neighbors have all apparently decided to be even more villainous and even less pragmatic, which leaves the Imperium looking good in comparison.

[Alaroma]

Unfortunately, it looks like I won't be able to join this rp. Thanks for the help y'all. Best wishes and luck.

Oof, sorry to hear Khas.