Why International Law is Important
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
sexy-girl
sacrilegious
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2001
- Posts
- 19,584
a very smart and interesting post lavender thank you for taking the time to write it
i would like to add as a side note although i dont agree with some of the things tony blair does domestically he seems to be winning a lot of respect internationally ... i've heard people name him as the most powerful man in the world because of his closeness to america and europe/rest of world ... im not sure if this is true but i think by looking outward and beyond our shores we are doing better for ourselves and long time it will benefit us as a country to gain respect internationally
where as america lately seems to be looking more inward ... maybe they will suffer some kind of international backlash from this i dont know ... i guess time will tell
i would like to add as a side note although i dont agree with some of the things tony blair does domestically he seems to be winning a lot of respect internationally ... i've heard people name him as the most powerful man in the world because of his closeness to america and europe/rest of world ... im not sure if this is true but i think by looking outward and beyond our shores we are doing better for ourselves and long time it will benefit us as a country to gain respect internationally
where as america lately seems to be looking more inward ... maybe they will suffer some kind of international backlash from this i dont know ... i guess time will tell
Thomas Paine
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2001
- Posts
- 438
Lavender, you are indeed a gem. Can I come to work for you someday?
Looking at the origin of the international laws dealing with patents and copyrights, those are fundamentally extensions of the U. S. Constitution where those property rights are explicitly identified and defined. Since America was the first nation to actually establish by moral definition that fact that government should protect these rights to intellectual property as well as real property, it is in essence the extension of American law across the world.
Trade treaties can and have remove(d) or lower(ed) trade barrier tariffs. But these are often the result of totalitarian or oppressive governments (more accurately politicians) trying to protect their internal economies or to exact exorbitant levels of taxation from their people for political motivations of the leaders.
But I am sincerely frightened by the idea of a set of international laws which are placed above the U. S. Constitution. Because once that happens, this nation ceases to exist because anyone can then take whatever they like from us with no regard for our rights or freedoms. Our internal politicians are doing it now with virtually no limits on their ability to steal and plunder. Giving this power to the world at large means America becomes the slave pit of the world to provide money, food, technology or whatever some foreign thug decides he wants to take.
Since no other nation on earth puts individual (human) rights and freedom as a primary value, i. e., outside the reach of government (or law), there is little likelihood that international law, if it ever comes to be under current conditions, will likewise champion and protect individual rights and freedoms.
So before we address the importance of International Law, let's examine Law as to its purpose and use.
First, what is the purpose of law?
Is law to be equated with justice?
How does one determine if a law is just (or unjust)?
Must law, to be just, treat all men by the same standard?
May some men use law to their advantage or must all receive the same benefit from the law?
If you'd care to answer these questions, it would perhaps help me understand some of the things you advocate in other posts you have made throughout the BB. And it will probably stimulate more questions.
Trade treaties can and have remove(d) or lower(ed) trade barrier tariffs. But these are often the result of totalitarian or oppressive governments (more accurately politicians) trying to protect their internal economies or to exact exorbitant levels of taxation from their people for political motivations of the leaders.
But I am sincerely frightened by the idea of a set of international laws which are placed above the U. S. Constitution. Because once that happens, this nation ceases to exist because anyone can then take whatever they like from us with no regard for our rights or freedoms. Our internal politicians are doing it now with virtually no limits on their ability to steal and plunder. Giving this power to the world at large means America becomes the slave pit of the world to provide money, food, technology or whatever some foreign thug decides he wants to take.
Since no other nation on earth puts individual (human) rights and freedom as a primary value, i. e., outside the reach of government (or law), there is little likelihood that international law, if it ever comes to be under current conditions, will likewise champion and protect individual rights and freedoms.
So before we address the importance of International Law, let's examine Law as to its purpose and use.
First, what is the purpose of law?
Is law to be equated with justice?
How does one determine if a law is just (or unjust)?
Must law, to be just, treat all men by the same standard?
May some men use law to their advantage or must all receive the same benefit from the law?
If you'd care to answer these questions, it would perhaps help me understand some of the things you advocate in other posts you have made throughout the BB. And it will probably stimulate more questions.
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
I agree it is a well thought-out post. I do have to disagree with some of it. Specifically,
"Now in the post-Cold War world, where America reigns supreme and democracy/capitalism are the victors, the world has plummeted back into chaos. We have regional conflicts, increased nuclear proliferation, an influx of rogue states, and the rise of international, as opposed to more domestic, terrorism."
America may reign Supreme as for being the strongest power left, But China and Russia seek to bring the United States down and use the vehicle, Internationalism, to do it. Look at China's militant stance this week in the WTO and her wooing of Afghan officials this week, as well as her new pact with Russia.
In fact, the chaos you now see is the chaos that was under the bi-polar system almost exactly to the same degree. As we head into a new bi-polar system and China decides to take Taiwan, and North Korea decides upon reunification, all under the Soviet nuclear umbrella, I know you find comfort in the fact that we will be able to pursue the matter under international law under the auspices of some international court superior the the combatants.
"During the Clinton years, there was a greater focus on international law. "
Yes. He used that to abdicate his responsibilities and not pursue Bin Laden. Liberals are dedicated in thier complete disreguard of the lesson taught by Neville Chamberlain.
[Would like to flesh out a bit, but a three-year old is demanding attention.]
"Now in the post-Cold War world, where America reigns supreme and democracy/capitalism are the victors, the world has plummeted back into chaos. We have regional conflicts, increased nuclear proliferation, an influx of rogue states, and the rise of international, as opposed to more domestic, terrorism."
America may reign Supreme as for being the strongest power left, But China and Russia seek to bring the United States down and use the vehicle, Internationalism, to do it. Look at China's militant stance this week in the WTO and her wooing of Afghan officials this week, as well as her new pact with Russia.
In fact, the chaos you now see is the chaos that was under the bi-polar system almost exactly to the same degree. As we head into a new bi-polar system and China decides to take Taiwan, and North Korea decides upon reunification, all under the Soviet nuclear umbrella, I know you find comfort in the fact that we will be able to pursue the matter under international law under the auspices of some international court superior the the combatants.
"During the Clinton years, there was a greater focus on international law. "
Yes. He used that to abdicate his responsibilities and not pursue Bin Laden. Liberals are dedicated in thier complete disreguard of the lesson taught by Neville Chamberlain.
[Would like to flesh out a bit, but a three-year old is demanding attention.]
sexy-girl
sacrilegious
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2001
- Posts
- 19,584
p_p_man said:
Work for her?
Hell I'll vote for her...
she'd be the president with the hottest azz ever
(oops did i say that i have to many bad influences in my life first lisa and now this place)
she'd also be one of the smartest in my view...
SINthysist said:
First off, learn the finer points of spelling. Conservatives are dedicated, seemingly, in their complete disregard of the lessons taught by Barney the Dinosaur.
Why are people so fascinated with Russia and the ridiculous belief that they pose even the slightest threat to anyone in anyway outside of accidents caused by lack of funding? Are you really so paranoid and behind the times that you think Ol' Igor and the boys sit around still thinking of ways to Crush Capatilsm(Using my best Drago from Rocky 4 accent on Crush Capatilsm).
Russians? They're too busy starving to be plotting the downfall of the united states through the dreaded scourge of duh, duh, duh Internationalism!
Svedish_Chef
On Walkabout
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2000
- Posts
- 9,937
Why do you have to be so fucking intelligent... I just went and read all of that.
And remember... Weevils are EVIL.
And remember... Weevils are EVIL.
Svedish_Chef
On Walkabout
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2000
- Posts
- 9,937
EBW said:
He does it so well too, like everything else he does
sexy-girl
sacrilegious
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2001
- Posts
- 19,584
i dont know why the american constitution was brought into this argument i see no reason either that international law would threaten the constitution
but as a added touch its interesting that americans are actually trying to avoid the constitution coming into effect with the taliban prisoners theres many additional rights they would receive if they were being held at a military base on american soil rather then cuba
personally i would of thought that any american base would be considered as american soil but i guess that isnt so ?
but as a added touch its interesting that americans are actually trying to avoid the constitution coming into effect with the taliban prisoners theres many additional rights they would receive if they were being held at a military base on american soil rather then cuba
personally i would of thought that any american base would be considered as american soil but i guess that isnt so ?
