Introduction Hans J. Morgenthau’s devoted his career to discovering the ‘truth’ behind what drives international politics. Confident that states, like men, have an innate lust for power and that international law cannot constrain the forceful pursuit of power, Morgenthau (1945) described the League of Nations as a “heroic and futile attempt to transform the political scene according to the postulates of liberal rationality”, naïve in assuming “that a rational system of thought by its own inner force can transform the conditions of man” (p. 145). At the time of writing, a new utopia had resurrected, a Machiavellian one this time, in the form of the United Nations. As idealist it was for the League of Nations to believe that peace could prevail
Vonnegut, the witness, acts as a moral scout, smuggling himself across battle lines to reach the front of consciousness where he hopes to find final resistance to killing. His moral awareness accounts for the uncommon affection for a cherished city of the declared enemy and for the German people themselves. They are presented as fellow human beings struggling against their own propensity for violence. And to the degree that Americans yielded to their destructive urge (the violent style of postwar American life suggests a high degree), they—we—fell victims. Bother political sides lost in the struggle for human decency.
V for Vendetta is a film that told us about England under the totalitarian rule, led by High Chancellor Adam Sutler that embraced fascism which means all the freedom of the people is limited. He did anything to keep his glory even killed the opposite party, politic prisoner, homosexual and Muslim. All of the citizen have no fear to resist or they do not care about the government, besides, the government has Fingerman, the cold-blooded police who serves to prevent the slightest offense. However, in the middle of this regime, a man who calls himself V, which always uses Guy
Norman Angell, originally called Ralph Norman Angell-Lane (1873-1967) was an English economist and worker for international peace, awarded with the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1933. Angell’s most famous work is the Great Illusion (1910) . In his work he tried to establish the false notion of the idea that war could bring conquering nation economic advantages. In his book Norman Angell argues that the interdependence and development of the European economies had made wars useless and obsolete, in other words no longer in use. However he doesn’t argue that war is impossible and that it wont happen but that going to war in the modern era is stupid and irrational.
Machiavelli Machiavelli was and continues to be one of the most influential figure in politics. His most famous and widely studied book was The Prince. The Prince depicted Machiavelli’s thoughts on how one obtains and sustains authority, as well as inspiring excellence in future leaders. The problem for some readers is that his methods are perceived to be unorthodox and evil; Machiavelli is a realist and sees the world not as it should be, but how it is. He also believes that the world doesn 't reward those who follow rules, and that political actions should not be limited by morality: basically, humans inherently value nationalism and security which rely on moral flexibility.
The flaw in Cassian’s logic, as well as in the logic of utilitarianism, is that the act of killing becomes morally shaky ground. It is impossible to determine whether or not the Rebel Alliance or the Empire is more justified in their acts of “good” as they both see their rationale for killing as necessary to reach their goals and provide the most good for the most amount of people (McLarney 2018). In the eyes of the Empire, Cassian and the rest of the rebels are traitors and terrorists to the lawful regime, thus killing them weeds out instability and insubordination as punishment for attacking imperial troops. For the Rebellion, the occupation, exploitation, and oppression of people is more morally reprehensible than any act of murder they commit due to the imbalance of power. Utilitarianism reaches a stalemate when both parties believe themselves to be in the right (McLarney 2018).
A Trump Victory There's another concern for a Trump presidency besides the likelihood of war, the appointment of ultra-conservative judges, the deepening of racial divides, mass deportation, the cooling of climate change initiatives and the loosening of regulations that restrain corporations from plundering and poisoning us. That concern is that a Trump victory defeats the ideal of the virtuous leader, the idea that success and greatness is built on the traditional values we've all been told to aspire to, the values that allow us to walk closer to divinity, the values that make us better persons and the world a better place. A Trump victory—and you can argue that he's already been victorious—spits in the face of those values. Here are the ones
As there is no clear victim in this case the principle of harm will not be applicable here and would not be considered as an act that can be criminalised. This paper is about whether a victimless crime can be criminalised. Various theorists have argued in favour and against the criminalisation process. The argument against criminalisation is mainly on the violation of the individual autonomy of a person, where he will be criminalised for an act that he did as a part of exercising his autonomy and has not affected any other person in the process. On the other hand, one argument from the side favouring criminalization is that if such acts are not criminalised then they may cause social harm.
an actual commentary to the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office), it is possible to see it as a sui generis body, mixing features of the executive and the judiciary power, a “transition” to judicial power. The trend is definitely toward this position. The public prosecutor’s office is not even an administrative office or an organ which could be focused on implementing government policy. Its status in the system of public power is specific. The public prosecutor’s office represents an organ for criminal justice.
So is International Law an actual law or moral code of conduct? One theory that has gained widespread recognition that international law is not an actual law, but rather a set of rules of behavior that only has moral force. Supporters of the theory are John Austin, Thomas Hobbes and Pufendorf. John Austin stated that international law is not a rule or norm of law, but only an ethics and norms of international courtesy alone. His view is based on his understanding of the law in general.