If you citizen of earth had a chance - would you vote a law against WAR making it globally against the law?

Question

in World Court, UN, etc as international law inclusive of all nations
enforced by global majority

Answer 1

There is no war within the US between the states, and they all exist peacefully together. If this is a possibility, this can be further extended to the whole earth so that war can be eliminated from the face of the earth. All people in the world should able to live together peacefully under one world government.

I feel ashamed of my fellow beings who think that war is good. Good for what? If we and our fellow beings have to sacrifice our lives, what good does it do? War is EVIL, and it must be eradicated for ever.

Answer 2

War has already been outlawed. The Kellogg Briand pact of 1928 renounced war as an instrument of national policy. Unfortunately it didn't work.

Again, the United Nations Charter "in order to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" says states should refrain from force or the treat of force in international relations.

Yet war still exists. Outlawing war will not solve the problem

Realists will say that states will always need their armies to defend themselves etc... and liberalists such as Immanuel Kant will say that it is possible to build a grassroots culture of peace, because in the end people don't benefit from war, and once people and states realise and accept this, perpetual peace can exist.

While it would be nice to outlaw war, it's better to have more peaceful ways to settle disputes and to encourage certain nations that law isn't just for other people.

Answer 3

Yes! And I'd bomb the hell out of anybody who broke the law!!! (ha ha). But seriously, yes, and offenders would be cut off from import/export. But to make it really work, we'd need to rid the world of the need for war - which could start with the US going around sharing its wealth, education, technology and helping other countries make their own paradises. And at the top priority of this movement would be the health of the planet.

Answer 4

So an significant regulation to declare there ought to be no regulation? i do no longer think of there can fairly be a society without its consumer-friendly codes of habit. Thou shalt no longer kill, thou shalt no longer thieve, for occasion, are consumer-friendly policies of habit few human beings might certainly choose for to stay without. in keeping with possibility what you're offering is something like North American Indian or African tribal societies, the place communities of elders be certain what to do with transgressors, aiming to greater useful the community, rather of imposing a inflexible 'regulation' gadget. for sure, modern-day commercial societies modern-day a distinctive issue. might you fairly desire to stay in a international the place there have been no rules regulating foodstuff labeling and air toxins? What some international the place no rules might govern who ought to prepare drugs? in keeping with possibility commercial societies are not the final thank you to stay, yet how can we almost flow back? How might we feed 6 billion human beings without recent marketplace? And this technique demands an astonishing form of rules to function.

Answer 5

I would not make it against the law parse, but I would put an updated system of checks and balances in place to make sure that everyone knows... if you do something stupid... it's you against the world...

Or, I would make the disagreeing parties play chess to resolve their issues... less people die that way.

Answer 6

Not without a valid method of enforcement.

Answer 7

i am not agree with any war ,but i am agree with truth and i always respect to nature ,when in nature and animals life or so s ,always we see the animals fight to find their pair ,or plants fight for having more sunlight ,or every thing in nature always try to find best position to be more alive,this wars arent just because one unit of that kind find the right to life ,its the secret of survive,we are not different too,we are animal too,and we live in nature too,but we must learn of animals ,learn of nature ,in nature most different kinds dont have any problem with each other just if one kind be victim of other kind food order .except it animals dont bother each other ,and in same kind they always have match to let their rice to just have best one ,if they dont do it then their kind will lose so fast ,the war for human is as it ,and its natural .but if this war armor be the power of mind not really killing each other is better ,but can u lead me to know if u passed one law against war and for example one country started war ,how can u stop that country ,with best wishes for that country ,or begging that country please dont kill us ,or as always u must take gun and answer to its attack .
peace is good and dramatically lovely .but i dont think always all of people can accept all the thing they have ,the truth is that stone will break the beautiful glass ,and with limitation of earth resources if really we want to dont war ,its better we vote to law that encourage countries to extend science to find a way to go to space or to find how we can use our limmited resources in best way ,the most reach industrial countries find it out years ago ,they dont fight with gun ,they fight with their mind and knowledge .during cold war the usa or Soviet didnt drop even one bomb but the knowledge of usa to how can it use weakness of Marxisms could make usa the woner ,but china find it out and not as his grandfather ,china started to going more and more in getting more knowledge to use the best way that they can use resources ,now also usa and china have war but with their minds not their guns

Answer 8

NO, war is good for the economy

Answer 9

You would need a means to enforce it

- which would mean that you need armies :)




---

Answer 10

Yes I would. "War....huh...yeah...What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" "It will only end in heartbreak!"