The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Anarchism is the only political philosophy which respects international law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
NoConviction has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 117932
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Anarchism is the political philosophy which advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions built out of non-hierarchical, Free associations.

Framework: I approach this debate by referring to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) (1).


The General Assembly's declarations start:

"1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, Domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, Is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, Social and cultural development. "

Self-governance is necessary in order to respect people's right to self-determination, A cardinal principle in international law. Should people not be able to exercise all of the necessary functions of power without interference they will lose the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status without that interference. This requires the institutions of their society to be voluntary in nature, Otherwise subjecting one's sovereignty to effectively legally alien subjugation, Domination and exploitation.

Furthermore, It requires these institutions to be non-hierarchical in nature and formed out of free association, As any state, Social class, Authority or private ownership of the means of production would result in the prioritization of one person's right to self-determination over another's, Allowing the dominant to infringe the fundamental human rights of the dominated.

The resolution continues:

"3. Inadequacy of political, Economic, Social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, And the integrity of their national territory shall be respected. "

In other words, Independence should come immediately and efforts to gain it should not be suppressed as they are in non-anarchist political systems. The resolution ends with:

"5. Immediate steps shall be taken, In Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, To transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, Without any conditions or reservations, In accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, Without any distinction as to race, Creed or colour, In order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, Non- interference in the internal affairs of all States, And respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity. "

This reinforces the immediate call to action and universality of this declaration. I argue that this declaration applies to individuals or groups of any size, And that declaring otherwise is an exercise in semantic pedantry, As my final point will illustrate:

These rules are not being obeyed by any state in the world. If they were, Separatist movements would be given free reign within the boundaries of international law. I speculate that this would initiate a domino effect which would see the disintegration of all nation-states into effective anarchy, Which is ultimately the only political philosophy that respects international law. Thank you.

(1) https://en. Wikisource. Org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514


International law would exist without a state.
Debate Round No. 1


I assume Con means to say that international law wouldn't exist without a state. I don't see the relevance, And to illustrate this I urge you to imagine a national law outlawing the state. The law wouldn't exist without the state, Yet the state is still in violation of its own law. This is commonly known as "hypocrisy" and highlights the cultural and cognitive dissonance of these societies. As a counterexample, As an anarchist I hold the principles of republicanism and libertarianism, Namely of popular sovereignty and liberty, In high esteem. This apparent contradiction may at first glance seem to make me the hypocrite. Yet it is the other way around. I take the principles supposedly espoused by those political philosophies more seriously than their own adherents do, Driving them to their logical conclusions.

On the off chance that Con is literally affirming that international law would exist without a state, I admit to be caught off-guard. I still don't see the relevance but I don't dismiss the thought of asking for further clarification.


International law is enforced upon states, Or nations, . Nations as we know them can't exist without a state. Plus, Your rules would be global law rather than international law, Which only mentions select countries.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NoConviction 3 years ago
Haha, Glad to pleasantly surprise you! I tried to set the debate topic in the most controversial (most "strong") and rigorous (scientifically disprovable) way possible. Hope someone joins eventually, I gave out my first argument right off the bat to hopefully attract some good debate.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Phew. For a second i thought this was another fanboymctroll debate. Nice to see someone who actually cares about the values of debate. Org
Posted by NoConviction 3 years ago
Why did the website capitalize every sub-phrase? T_T
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.