A little more civil than the law of the jungle of stupid thugs. Familiarize yourself with "international law" - an honorable term that only legitimizes stupid thugs - administration of inhumanity.
International law, Westphalian system, Hague convention, Geneva converntion, Rome statute
Opinion
In my opinion, "international law" is similar to boxing matches. For whatever idiocy, people find it entertaining when two people fight each other.
If you do that on the street, you get punished.
If you do that in the boxing ring, you do it legally.
Although "international law" sounds highly honorable, "international law" is hardly different from a boxing ring.
In the boxing ring there is a referee who administers "international law". If he is not careful he will get a punch in the mouth himself.
Then we have the judges outside the ring. They just count. It's basically the daily, dull, stupid chatter of politicians and NGOs.
None of this has anything to do with right. None of this has anything to do with humanity. The psychopaths are allowed to fight each other. The devilish thing about it is that these psychopaths don't care about people or bystanders.
Is my opinion pulled out of thin air? I think not, you just have to look at WHAT is actually going on.
Read why I think so
International law is only there to protect certain groups
Let's think about the law of war. Think about it for a long time. Then at some point we'll have to laugh. They are rules for the special case of war, with one key, stupid simple rule.
Where does this whole weird, artificial ideology come from?
The Westphalian system, Westphalian state system or Westphalian model is, in the narrower sense, the political order that developed in Europe on the basis of Jean Bodin's theory of state and Hugo Grotius's theory of natural law (Lol, “natural law”) after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. According to this concept, states are not only the legal monopolists of war, but also the de facto monopolists of the ability to wage war.
In the broader, political science sense, this also basically refers to a system of nation states that are sovereign internally and externally.
The Westphalian system also established the idea of a "nation within a nation state" historically. In the centuries that followed, the nation - often idealized as homogeneous - developed into a legitimation and motivation for political rule.
Three principles are characteristic:
Sovereignty principle
Every state is sovereign. No authority is superior to the multitude of states. The principle of self-help or anarchy prevails among them.
Territorial principle
The states have clear territorial borders within which they have a monopoly on the use of force.
Legality principle
The states are equal to one another. War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
The prohibition of violence between states in the Charter of the United Nations negotiated after the Second World War and the limitation of state sovereignty through the progressive universalization of human rights are indications that the Westphalian system has been further developed.
Characteristics of the system are:
The international system is one of states. The state is considered the sole actor.
The monarch or government represents the state and its population externally (foreign policy).
States are in principle sovereign and in principle (under international law) equal (equality).
International law is the law of states. States are guided by reason of state.
Communication between states is ensured by diplomacy.
The system strives for a balance of power between states, primarily through the formation of alliances and countervailing powers.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.
Haager Landkriegsordnung - Hague Convention on Land Warfare
The Hague Convention on Land Warfare is part of international law.
War sounds here like a folkloristic ritual according to whose rules war must be played
The Hague Convention on Land Warfare (HLKO) is the appendix to the second Hague Convention of 1899 "concerning the laws and customs of war on land", which was adopted during the first peace conference in The Hague and was adopted again in 1907 as the fourth Hague Convention in a slightly modified version at the follow-up conference.
It is the most important of the Hague Conventions created during these conferences and thus, alongside the Geneva Conventions, an essential part of international humanitarian law.
In the event of war, the Hague Convention on Land Warfare contains provisions on the definition of combatants, on the treatment of prisoners of war, on restrictions on the choice of means of warfare, on the sparing of certain buildings and facilities of social and societal importance, on the treatment of spies, on capitulations and armistice agreements, and on the behavior of an occupying power in an occupied territory.
When it comes to dealing with injured and sick soldiers, the Hague Convention on Land Warfare refers to the first Geneva Convention in the versions of 1864 and 1906.
The Rules of Land Warfare established three fundamental principles in international humanitarian law:
even in an armed conflict, there is never a completely lawless area or a situation without any laws,
there are restrictions on the choice of means of warfare and
civilians, other non-combatants and civilian facilities are to be spared as far as possible. SO A “CAN” NOT “MUST” RULE
The Hague Convention on Land Warfare does not contain any provisions for sanctions for individuals or groups of individuals for violations of the rules contained therein. Only Article 3 of the associated agreement in the 1907 version stipulates a generally formulated obligation to pay compensation in the event of a violation by a contracting party.
Geneva convention
I don’t map that out as it doesn’t change the essence of the law of war
But I want to point you to another crazy thing. The protective sign of the Geneva convention
You always have to laugh, because everywhere you look, symbols of the old Egyptian religions are used. You find it in Politics, Governments, Churches, Freemasons, ….
The sun, symbol of the egyptian sun cult, which is still widespread today and is worshipped in obelisks and pyramids, in simple form as triangles and circles.
There was more than one sun god. Xeper sun god of the rising sun, Ra sun god of midday, Tum sun god of the sunset. Hathor is also used for Tum and is the daughter of Ra. Long introduction but the point is that Hathor, the goddess of the sunset, has the symbol of a lion.
The essence is that the Geneva Convention seems to praise and stand under the god of the sunset, Hathor. According to Gieole Magaldi Hathor is a name for a super lodge. Sunset is indicating the end of the day, which can be seen as the end of something.
Fun playing around with the word “law”
the indoeuropean word for law is “aiwa”. In northern Deutschland, a blend of deutsch and english “wa”. Add “l” > “wal”, mirror it > Here we go: “Law”.
“Wa”, add a “r” > “War”. Law, right, law are just Wars without weapons.
Mirror “W” at “wars” > You get Mars.
Horus is a sun god. Hor-deser is the red Horus and stands for the Planet Mars. Mars is roman God of war.
Why mirroring? E.g. Leonardo DaVinci wrote everything mirrored. Let’s take it as a hint.
When you practise some word transformation rules you see how often those transformation rules work out. Nevertheless key is to understand deutsch and you check indoeuropean language. Use https://koeblergerhard.de/wikiling/ to search using english words.
What are basic transformation rules:
Swap AEIOU
Swap neighboring letters from the alphabet. Example “water” > “st” are neigbours > “waser”
Check mirroring. Example “Wasser” > Masser > Masse < english masses
Drop double letters oder add doubeling > “waser” > “Wasser” < Deutsches word for water
Have in mind that certain letters are identical or can be identical. E.g. C and K, V and F, V and W, …..
Let’s repeat two sentence to get the essence of mad “science” and “law”
War is another part of the normality of the state system. War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War is another part of the normality of the state system. War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War is another part of the normality of the state system. War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War is another part of the normality of the state system. War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War is another part of the normality of the state system. War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.War as a means of enforcing the interests of a state is considered legitimate.
War is another part of the normality of the state system.….