Do you support Mahathir's idea on "criminalizing the war"?

Question

And do you think the tribunal based on it will actually work? Why? And if you oppose it, what is your reason?

Answer 1

I believe, strongly, in an International Criminal Courts system. Being a globally minded person and believing that we all share this planet, I think we could all benefit from universal laws of conduct between countries.

Having said that, I believe that wars have become criminal in nature. There used to be a system of 'honor' in war...unbelievable as it may sound. And those acting without honor were punished accordingly. We cannot accept that 'anything goes' when it comes to war.

Answer 2

First things first, to criminalize anything implies that it was original not (recognized as) criminal, and therefore prosecution of a previously legal action allows lawmakers to target their enemies, and makes criminals of law abiding people. You cannot criminalize anything present or past, because it holds people to a previously undefined standard and forces people into a very unstable world where they have to try to predict all future changes in laws (which of course is impossible).

Secondly, an international court requires an international government to create laws upon which its judgements may be based (lest the judges themselves also become the lawmakers, hence the saying, "legislation from the bench"), and an international police/military to enforce their judgements. An international government is prone to the same corruptions as any government, including the UN, and its laws will be based upon the values of those in power (typically tyrants), and not of the people it governs (unless it is a true democracy). Find me a government which represents its people effectively and without corruption, and then we may discuss the possibility of implementing such a system on a worldwide scale. An international law enforcement branch (police/military) must be immune from the possibility of a coup (who can save the world from a coup on the international government?) and strong enough to enforce the judges of its courts. The question of sovereignty immediately arises between the national governments and the international government, and like the American Civil War which settled a similar dispute between the States and the Federal government, we may expect that there must also occur an international "Civil War" to settle the issue of national rights and sovereignty.

My answer is: You can't criminalize an existing war. Furthermore, criminalizing future wars requires a government with the appropriate jurisdiction (over the countries in question) and with the power of enforcement of its own laws. Any non-democratic government is destined to trample the rights of the people and their nations with a corrupt tyranny (thus it will not "work"). Criminalizing war is like criminalizing arguments. The world, by nature, will always have them and they can never be suppressed by any kind of law; they can only be resolved. It becomes a very dangerous precedent when it is only legal for the "higher" government to use force (the only way to rule in this world), while being illegal for people or their "lesser" governments (nations) to use force; historically, this situation has been the precursor to the world's greatest atrocities and genocides. My reason against criminalizing war is that, suddenly, the only people who can legally fight are the ones who are executing the agenda of the tyrant, even an international tyrant.

Answer 3

Who is Mahathir? And what is his basis for criminalizing a war that is backed by dozens of Iraqi treaty violations and UN resolutions. Why is Mahathir not pursuing the AL Qaeda criminals and Muslim terrorists who are attacking unarmed civilians in markets every day. Where does he get such tunnel vision unless he is backing the Muslim extremists?

Answer 4

his idea was totally bias towards Muslim