[macspoofing]

>Sovereign nations not at war aren’t supposed to conduct hostile ops against each other.

Says who?

When was that ever true in the history of civilization?

The only peace humanity every knew was within the border of some empire. Otherwise it was constant war.

[wahern]

Says international law, including the United Nations charter (reciting the Westphalian doctrine), which every member state signs onto.

Of course, there are large grey areas in international relations, and nobody can reasonably expect perfect compliance, anyhow. But beyond any specific practical, tactical, or strategic reasons for maintaining plausible deniability, refusing to openly admit to a violation still reflects a degree of obeyance to the law. When large nations start openly flouting norms w/ a giant "F-U", that's when you know the international order and world peace is in trouble.

Plausible deniability of military ops is the nation-state equivalent of the polite fiction in cultural anthropology--an important, useful tool providing resilience to the normative system.

[macspoofing]

>Says international law, including the United Nations charter (reciting the Westphalian doctrine), which every member state abides by.

And who enforces this law?

[wahern]

Not who, but what--self-interest, the natural human predisposition to obey cultural norms, biologically innate concept of "fairness", etc.

A cultural norm is also a mechanism for streamlining cooperation--whenever some person or entity breaks established norms, you don't need to convene and deliberate to decide whether it was wrong, it's just per se wrong and members can instantaneously begin acting accordingly. It keeps everybody aligned. Not perfectly, but to a much greater degree than when the particular invisible boundaries don't exist. And that's one reason why it's in everybody's self-interest to substantially promote obeyance to such norms, and avoid harming the norm.

Some norms are more important than others. In the context of international relations, sovereignty is perhaps still the most important one. Unless you're prepared to conquer the entire world, anything you do that harms the principle harms yourself as other nation-states are less likely to respect your own sovereignty. Balancing these interests (e.g. short-term gain vs long-term harm) is complex, but as I said upholding the principle of sovereignty is one of the most sacrosanct. And so when it's violated it's quite understandable why even super powers like the U.S. and China remain circumspect, invariably resorting to plausible deniability or pretense justifications that at least nominally avoid openly flouting the principle.

[macspoofing]

You're spinning in circles. 'self-interest, the natural human predisposition to obey cultural norms' are abstract ideas, not international enforcement bodies.

>And that's why it's in everybody's self-interest to substantially promote obeyance to such norms, and avoid harming the norm.

Oh yeah? If that's the case, why does a thing like 'tragedy of commons' exist? Is it because without a central authority to enforce order, the rational action to take by each actor is to cheat and to take as much for themselves because if they don't, someone else will? But don't believe me, look at all of history. Peace only existed when an empire was able to enforce it.

Circling back to Iran. Iran has their sovereignty, they just are pariah state because they chose a policy of antagonism against a super-power - that policy hasn't worked out for them at all.

[wahern]

If "might makes right" was the only viable dynamic, the human species wouldn't exist. It's one very important dynamic, but hardly the only one, and not the principle dynamic upon which human civilizations are built. It's why North Korea is still a sh*t hole, while China increasingly relies on nationalism and other social mechanisms to manage its society. Force or even the threat of force doesn't scale very well.

History is important but not determinative. The emergence of the Westphalian doctrine was a novel civilizational development; novel in how deeply and quickly it spread. It's sort of like the concepts of monotheism or "human rights"--decentralized, self-perpetuating, viral organizing principles which can't easily be put back in the box once they achieve critical mass.

EDIT: To be clear, the problem with a nation-state like the U.S. flouting national sovereignty is that the "United States" is a construct predicated on the international sovereign order. Undermining that international order undermines the very identity of the country, an identity undergirding the legitimacy of its institutions and the willingness of its people to promote them, not to mention the legitimacy of its external relationships. So even though there are counter-forces--often very powerful counter-forces--the forces for maintaining the logic of the nation-state order are exceptionally powerful and at work at all levels. Mechanisms like plausible deniability (where plausible implies something that can be tolerably overlooked) are like pressure relief valves for contradictions that threaten the normative order. Someday the nation-state order may collapse, overwhelmed by stronger organizing dynamics, hopefully establishing a better civilizational equilibrium, but so what? The point is understanding the reasons for how and why countries act in the particular, peculiar ways that they currently do.

[sudosysgen]

Force and the threat of force scales incredibly well. The question is just how refined your mechanism for applying it is.

Economically, the United States is the most effective country. It got to where it is through a genocide, and it enforces the rules of its economy by threatening force all the way to deadly force in every single commercial interaction, in the interactions of property, and even in the data you're allowed to read and share. Property is the basis of American society and the basis of property is force.

The international order is a farce. It's main enforcer, the United States, is not a signatory to half of what it purports to enforce, and violates international law whenever it is convenient.

The nation state order is different from the international order, and is based on the coalescing of national power into an entity with the monopoly of violence.

At every single level, the current order is based on force. It exists because the mighty wanted it to exist and because it is an efficient way to organize power, not because it's right or even because it's an useful set of rules to apply to every situation.

Really, it's mostly a tool to spin narratives and make the use of force more efficient.

[macspoofing]

>If "might makes right" was the only viable dynamic, the human species wouldn't exist.

It's not the only viable dynamic but it's the first and most important one. If your tribe, or nation cannot defend its borders it doesn't go on existing. That was a fact for all of human civilization. We can't even count the number of peoples that were exterminated by rivals over the course human civilization and lost to history.

Within the borders of an empire, with a strong central authority who took the option of force away, "might makes right" takes a backseat to politics, which determines the status of your tribe or nation. Our present world order mimics this state. You can exist as a nation-state but you have to play by the rules. This starts breaking down as the power of some rival nation-state grows. China has a lot of ability to buck American order, and as it ascends to a global super-power it will have more. But don't think for a minute that nation-states that align with China will be free to do whatever they want. They will have to follow China's rules. If not, they will cease to exist or become a pariah state.

>The emergence of the Westphalian doctrine was a novel civilizational development; novel in how deeply and quickly it spread.

It spread because a super-power allowed it and supported it. The present global order was created after the second world war led to the collapse of European empires and ascendance of USA and Soviet Union. It was initially defined by those two super-powers, one market-based and democratic, the other communist and authoritarian. It is not a coincidence that most nations adopted one of those two systems. It is also not a coincidence that when the communist super-power collapsed, democracy (the favoured system of the other super-power) became a default system of governance. If the 21st century sees the ascendance of China as a sole super-power, their system will become the default system of governance.

I have no idea how you can think that abstract ideas can simply enforce their will.

>It's sort of like the concepts of monotheism or "human rights"--decentralized, self-perpetuating, viral organizing principles which can't easily be put back in the box once they achieve critical mass.

Put another way, if you can convince the dominant empire to adopt your ideas, your ideas will spread. When only a small regional power was monotheistic, it was a nothing burger. When it was adopted, first by the Roman empire, and then by a growing Arab empire, only then did monotheism became a dominant strain of religion. Ideas have power, but only insofar that a dominant force monopoly accepts them. You can actually see this in history with local warlords, nation-states, and tribes converting to monotheism to align themselves politically with the relevant empire (Christian or Muslim).

>It's why North Korea is still a sh*t hole, while China increasingly relies on nationalism and other social mechanisms to manage its society.

You're conflating concepts. There are any number of ways that you could manage a nation, some better than others. That has nothing to do with anything. What North Korea, China, USA and all other nations have in common is that they have a monopoly on force that enforces order. Why do you think police carries guns? Why do you think Police exists in the first place? There certainly is a 'carrot' component and people largely willingly buy into the system, but the existence of police should strongly suggest that this is only the case because violence has been taken away as an option. Put another way, you as a citizen interacting with another citizen, cannot use violence as an option even if you wanted to (unless it's explicitly allowed by the force monopoly). Nation-states that cannot enforce order and do not have a monopoly on force are labeled as 'failed states'. Those are the worst places to live on earth.

This is a good analogue to nation-states interacting with each other. The option of force has been largely been taken away as an option, especially for nations within the sphere of influence of a super-power or allied with a super-power.

It's why Iran funds terrorist organizations and proxy militias in Syria, Yemen and region, but doesn't actually invade its neighbours or openly commit its armies. Maybe it doesn't want to, but that's immaterial ... because regardless of whether it wants to or not, it isn't allowed to. When Iraq invaded Iran in the 1980s it gambled that America will stand back because of Iran's antagonism towards America. They got that right and America not-so-subtly even supported the Iraqi military campaign. On the other side, when Iraq gambled and invaded Kuwait, and American ally, in the 1990s - they lost that bet.

By the way, North Korea only exists because China pushed back UN forces during the Korea War. North Korea continues to exist only because China protects it.

>Force or even the threat of force doesn't scale very well.

It scales very well. It's ever present in every interaction we have. Even seemingly benign and unassuming laws, like fines for littering, have the threat of force and death behind them and it's easy to see how. If you litter, you will have an interaction with armed police and courts, and depending on how that interaction goes, you may be killed or deprived of your freedom.

>Mechanisms like plausible deniability (where plausible implies something that can be tolerably overlooked) are like pressure relief valves for contradictions that threaten the normative order.

Sure. Humans are good at managing cognitive dissonance. Did you know, for example, that Roman ideals were against starting of wars? That was a very important concept to the way how Romans saw themselves. In practice, this meant that if Rome wanted to go on a particular war campaign they would manipulate the situation in such a way that it would 'look' like their hand was forced.

[AdamJacobMuller]

People get annoyed that "international law" isn't really a think and is more like "international suggestions."

[sudosysgen]

They used the word "supposed", not "can't". There are better arguments for what you're trying to convey.

[macspoofing]

I'm not sure where 'supposed' comes from. OP is arguing that the way the world works in their mind, is how it is 'supposed' to work in real life.

[TheBill]

Enoon. Take a look at China's activity in SEA.

[userulluipeste]

"The only peace humanity every knew was within the border of some empire. Otherwise it was constant war."

This is a bold claim on a very much debatable subject, where it would come down to what "war" is, if it is the same with armed conflict/incident (like opposing force against a robbery), and so on. There are many countries, even neighboring ones (like Serbia and Romania), that say that have never been in a war against each other.

As to the commendation of living within an empire, that is just helplessness against empire's overpowering forces, which is far from the general idea of "peace" as in Wikipedia-defined "societal friendship and harmony in the absence of hostility and violence".

[macspoofing]

>This is a bold claim on a very much debatable subject, where it would come down to what "war" is, if it is the same with armed conflict/incident (like opposing force against a robbery), and so on.

No. It's not debatable. Show me an example of an extended peace between nations outside of the borders of an empire. This is almost a tautology to say that you need a central authority to have a monopoly of force. Otherwise you're in the 'tragedy of commons' scenario.

>There are many countries, even neighboring ones (like Serbia and Romania), that say that have never been in a war against each other.

Certainly they don't want to, but that's immaterial, they aren't allowed to. They are within the sphere of American order.

>As to the commendation of living within an empire, that is just helplessness against empire's overpowering forces, which is far from the general idea of "peace" as in Wikipedia-defined "societal friendship and harmony in the absence of hostility and violence".

Well ... OK ... that's all we have.

[userulluipeste]

"Certainly they don't want to, but that's immaterial, they aren't allowed to. They are within the sphere of American order."

If we are referring to the Serbia-Romania example, the peace track record is way longer before what you call American order to be a thing (and even longer if we'd count peace between their people, before statehood), then afterwards it's safe to say that they kept their peace despite America's interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia