In today's global landscape, the interaction between international law and the sovereign actions of states presents a complex and often contentious arena. International legal standards, frequently influenced by progressive ideals, often clash with the sovereign actions of nations seeking to preserve their cultural, social, and security interests. This tension is evident in various policy debates, including those on borders, cultural practices, and national security.
International law aims to create a framework for cooperation and peaceful coexistence among nations. It promotes principles such as human rights, democracy, and rule of law. However, the application of these standards reflects a bias towards progressive ideals that do not align with the values or interests of all nations. This leads to conflicts where international bodies impose standards that challenge the sovereignty and autonomy of individual states. Globalism is at its very worst, and imposed homogenization often leads to genoside.
Nations have the right to govern themselves and make decisions that best serve their people. This principle of sovereignty allows states to implement policies that reflect their unique cultural, social, and economic contexts. However, when international law seeks to enforce norms that are seen as foreign or intrusive, it leads to resistance and pushback from these states. Often the UN and their international law protagonists use lawfare. This lawfare often costs the country dearly, often slanders those being accused of non-compliance, and often seeks to impose restrictions or financial burdens on countries based on vague moral belief systems that often do not align with the citizens of those countries. Legal extremism is just as damaging and destructive as any terrorist attack or incursion by foreign forces.
Australia provides a pertinent example of this tension. The country has faced international criticism for its strict immigration policies, particularly concerning its treatment of asylum seekers. Australia’s government argues that its policies are necessary to protect national security and maintain social cohesion. The implementation of offshore detention centres for asylum seekers has been a contentious issue, drawing condemnation from international human rights organisations. However, Australian authorities contend that these measures are essential to prevent illegal immigration and human trafficking. The breakdown of society in the UK, France, Germany, and most of Europe are clear examples of what occurs when boundaries, borders, and sovereignty are not respected. These previous homes of art, ideas, and freedom are now just shithole countries that are unsafe, have roaming rape gangs, and deal with constant violence and rioting.
In the Northern Territory, issues surrounding the treatment of Aboriginal communities highlight the complexity of applying international human rights standards. Efforts to protect and promote the rights of these communities must balance respect for traditional practices with broader human rights norms. International bodies have criticised certain aspects of these traditional practices, leading to debates over cultural preservation versus universal human rights. On the ground, activist judicial interventionists promote greater investment in these communities by a range of NGO's whose main aim has been to impose welfare dependency and victimhood mental abuse, to profit from ongoing crises of their own making.
International legal standards often promote progressive ideals that are at odds with the values of more conservative or traditional societies. For instance, debates over gender identity, sexual education, and children’s rights reveal deep-seated differences between international norms and national policies. The push for progressive reforms in these areas is perceived as an imposition of foreign values, leading to resistance from sovereign states. The UN's legal promotion of child trafficking, sexualization, juvenile sexual mutilation, and the imposition of imported extremist violence and ideology should be continually highlighted as clear indicators that those promoting international law are often enemies of the sovereign states they seek to influence.
The issue of open borders versus controlled immigration is another flashpoint. International standards often advocate for the humane treatment of migrants and refugees, which translates into policies promoting more open borders. However, many nations, prioritising national security and social stability, opt for stricter border controls. This conflict is evident in the rhetoric and policies of countries that have faced significant migration pressures. The challenge lies in balancing compassion and security without compromising either. Open borders can not exist where welfare exists, as all it does is reward bad behaviour and encourage economic migrants.
The tension between international law and sovereign actions has real-world consequences. When international bodies impose standards that are perceived as overreaching, they undermine their own legitimacy and provoke nationalist backlashes. Conversely, when nations disregard international norms, they can isolate themselves and face diplomatic and economic repercussions. However, clear evidence shows that international law often harms nations, not helps them.
Countries like Hungary and Poland have faced EU sanctions for policies that the EU deems contrary to its democratic standards. These nations argue that they are defending their sovereignty and cultural identity against an overreaching supranational authority. This dynamic illustrates the broader conflict between international expectations and national sovereignty.
Navigating the tensions between international law and sovereign actions requires a nuanced understanding of the principles and interests at play. While international law seeks to promote universal standards, it must respect the sovereignty of nations and their right to self-determination. Those in the international law community have clearly verified they have no care for the individual identity of sovereign states, and often use violence and lawfare to punish and deter those who call them out on their malevolent actions and policies. There are no final solutions, only trade offs, and the negotiations with international bodies often seek to balance conflicting imperatives to foster global cooperation and maintain peace. However, recent history is full of examples of international law being used as an excuse to invade sovereign countries to steal their resources and murder citizens.
The examples from Australia demonstrate the challenges and complexities inherent in this balance. As nations continue to interact on the global stage, finding ways to reconcile international legal standards with sovereign actions will remain a key issue. By respecting both international norms and national sovereignty, the global community seeks to work towards a more harmonious and just world. The reality is far from this, as global bureaucrats often mimic the very examples of democide that come from unfettered bureaucratic expansion and power grabs. One need not accept that those who hold an ideology that has always led to democide, are seeking to create a utopia, when the evidence is so obvious that population reduction isn't an unforseeable accident from their policies but a recognised norm.
From the author.
The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.
Comments