Why International Law is Important

[p_p_man]

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 ?

You must have realised by now sexy-girl that you can't have a conversation with an American on any subject, from International Law to the price ofice cream, without them bringing in the Constitution somewhere!

It's like a knee jerk reaction...

And your point about Guantanamo being American soil (like an Embassy) is well said.

I think most Americans think of it that way as well.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Ahh, PP...........there you go again!!!

"You must have realised by now sexy-girl that you can't have a conversation with an American on any subject, from International Law to the price ofice cream, without them bringing in the Constitution somewhere!

It's like a knee jerk reaction... "


I think the "Knee-jerk" reaction is yours. Since law in the U.S. is based totally on the Constitution it is no more knee-jerk to bring it up than it would be for you to discuss English Common Law.

This thread is heavily involved in law. International law must only be able to effect the individual countries that are signatory, and only to the extent of how participating governments deal with each other on the world stage. Law, the legal system affecting the citizens of a country, must remain in the domain of that government, society or people only.

But, once again your seemed hatred of anything "American" has led you to attack in blind non-intellectualism!

Hey.......maybe you could add "knee-jerk" to your "silly walk"!!

RhumbRunner

 

[p_p_man]

This thread is heavily involved in law. International law must only be able to effect the individual countries that are signatory, and only to the extent of how participating governments deal with each other on the world stage. Law, the legal system affecting the citizens of a country, must remain in the domain of that government, society or people only.

Your logic is almost as twisted as Unclebill's. If America breaks Internationsl Laws, that's OK because she is doing so under the auspices of her own national Laws. That International Laws are only extensions of national Laws.

That's got to sound like crap even to his logically twisted mind.

International Laws are separate entities put in place to legally define situations that affect all countries. If one country does not agree then they don't sign. Or they negotiate provisos to cover their national circumstances.

What America does (according to the legal nonsensity of Unclebill) is to sign up, and then break the agreement whenever following the law would be breaking a national one.

They are broken by individual countries not because they directly contravene national Laws but because it would not be in that country's perceived interests to comply with them.

Using national Law (ie the American Constitutiion according to UB) as an excuse, is just a sign of a country which knows it has no legal standing to break an International Law, but wants to anyway. So the national Law scenario is used instead, as a red herring, and to muddy the waters.

ppman.


ppman

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by lavender
Your politics are like a game of tug of war. One side gains and the other loses. It's a zero sum game. That philosophy is quite antiquated, in my opinion.

Not my politics; freedom is not a tug of war. Legalized plunder perpetrated by government makes collectivist politics the tug-of-war you note. It is collectivism that creates the environment in which each faction struggles for control of the legislative process to confiscate part of society's productivity for itself. Capitalism (economic freedom) is competitive but no one can take what is not legitimately his. Collectivism is the practitioner of this legalized plunder that does not permit subordination of government law to moral law.

If you've read much of my posts, you should no that I am not a proponent of the zero-sum concept. I have noted many times on various posts that man creates wealth. That is the capitalist view. The zero-sum view is more typically the collectivist point of view often expressed in the concept that the rich become rich on the backs of the poor.

The fallacy is so ridiculous as to be blatantly obviously false but too many people are ready to but into it. But, in a free society, a rich man is rich because he provides a product or service to other men at a price they are willing to pay and does it on a wide scale basis earning a small portion of his wealth from many men who voluntarily trade with him in the free marketplace.

Originally posted by lavender
Why does the advancement of international law have to mean that these laws would supercede our Constitution? Don't you realize that clauses of almost every treaty and convention have intricate measures for ratification that recognize that a nation may need to check with their lawmaking bodies to ensure that these provisions do not contradict national laws? International law is not about allocating money. International law is about setting standards of compliance. International law is not going to dictate that America is the slave pit of the world. That's just irrational fear of the unknown that is taking root in your head. You've read way too much prophetic literature.

How is an International Law of any use or purpose if it does not supercede the law of a nation subject to it? What you imply relegates International Law to mere wishes if there is not supremacy of authority.

Just as U. S. Federal laws supercede individual state laws in conflict within the U. S, for International Law to have any efficacy or meaning, there must be a hierarchy of supremacy. And if the International Law is not supreme, it is worthless.

As to allocating money, neither is there any such provision permitted in the U. S. Constitution beyond the authority to raise money for those things expressly delegated to the Federal government therein. By virtue of the Constitution subordinating the government's law to moral law, the U. S. Federal government became the first and only moral government in recorded history. But that restraint is ignored and thus the law restraining the power of even our government, albeit limited by our laws, has been perverted to do precisely what you say is NOT the province of International Law.

If our government with explicit prohibition of its present actions does so in blatant disregard for its clear limits, how would you propose to subordinate an International Law to moral law? Or do you not offer any such proposal?

If International Law is only about establishing standards of compliance, compliance with what and in what venues?

I wish I could write off my concerns as easily as you as irrational fear. But I see a government with very clear and explicit prohibitions against seizure of property without just cause ignore those prohibitions flagrantly. I hope you are right but just observing our government leaves me with grave concern.

What do you consider the likelihood that you can garner support for a world wide foundation of government which is subordinated to moral law? Or do you not wish that to be the case? And if not, why?

BTW, I don't read prophecy. Remember, I'm an atheist. Prophecy is merely an extraordinarily good guess.

Originally posted by lavender
International law can coexist with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, most international treaties that we seem to be trying to get out of are in compliance with our Constitution. They simply aren't in compliance with our current political figure's objectives. I hate to be presumptuous, but I think the Bill of Rights is probably the portion of the Constitution that you hold nearest and dearest to your heart. In many ways, international law has tried to make these democratic and capitalistic principles the norm around the world.

How can International Law achieve your asserted goal if national sovereignty is to be observed? In order to make the principles expressed in the foundation of the US Federal government, the nations laws to the contrary must be overturned. And I find it hard to believe that any government in power is going to surrender its sovereignty even in part.

Actually, the Bill of Rights is the lesser important part of it. The sections that define and limit the authority of the various branches are the important part of it. Of the Bill of Rights, perhaps the tenth is the most important because it explicitly states that the others are not a complete enumeration of the various aspects of the rights of free men.

Originally posted by lavender
So many times you are so specifically focusing on property rights as tantamount to all other freedoms. You are well aware that we differ greatly in this regard. International law is trying to champion and protect the individual rights of those throughout the globe, not just the United States. International law is now focused on more western notions of freedom and individualism. International law is promoting these ideas throughout the globe. I can't begin to think of a single international convention that is part of customary law that infringes on our individual freedoms in this nation. It might interfer with out government's freedom, but that is quite different.

Law serves various purposes. One of the primary purposes of the law is to protect the individual from the state. International law protects the rights of nations when they are abridged by another country. The law is not a panacea. It doesn't claim to be, and it never will achieve this status.

There is no necessity for International Law to protect the rights of American citizens. We already have a government established and defined for that purpose. And the fact that it is no longer the protector but has become the most flagrant violator leaves me with genuine concern that you (esp. being an attorney) either don't recognize this fact of reality or choose to ignore it to what purpose I cannot fathom.

And I'm mystified by the term "government's freedom". Government is an abstract entity, not a person. Rights and the corollary, freedom, is the sole province of the individual. Rights are not the province of any group, organization, affiliation or non-living entity. The concept of a right applies legitimately only to an individual, a living human being.

And as such, there is no such thing truly as "nation rights". The people of a society who live in a specific region have every right to defend themselves against aggression of another nation, but that is merely the exercise of their collectivization or pooling of force derived from the right to self-defense to repel an invasion or attack. They have no legitimacy of they pool this same resource to invade a neighbor.

And I'm really curious about your perception on property rights. Are you saying they are not equivalent to other rights (or more properly other aspects of the one basic right, the right to one's life)? Do you perceive or represent it is as superior or subordinate? And on what basis?

Originally posted by sexy-girl
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

First, they are not American citizens. And if you read the preamble, it specifies that the Constitution is applicable to American citizens. And that is completely reasonable since it is the American government. The Constitution is not the Taliban government nor the Afghan government, thus it has no jurisdiction over their citizens/members. And since they have declared war on America, the Geneva Convention is the more applicable authority and for the most part, it is being used I believe.

And why would you suggest making a significant security risk escalation by bringing to American soil where they can be among innocent Americans to wreak havoc and terror should they escape. However unlikely, it is not impossible.

Placing them on Cuba places them where we have the best security of control. They are not likely to get too far even if they escape. Since Cuba is sympathetic, they are not going to terrorize and destroy there. But they are also too far from their homeland to escape and simply vanish into the countryside. And to get to the U. S. they have a 90 mile swim or get a flight out of Cuba. And if they try to fly into the US from there, I'm sure we will have a security alert to all incoming flights.

Originally posted by RhumbRunner13
I think the "Knee-jerk" reaction is yours. Since law in the U.S. is based totally on the Constitution it is no more knee-jerk to bring it up than it would be for you to discuss English Common Law

You should read the U. S. Constitution thoroughly. Then look at most of today's Federal laws. You'll find that the vast majority of them are NOT based on it, but in fact are in explicit violation of the constitutional authority of Congress.

Originally posted by p_p_man
International Laws are separate entities put in place to legally define situations that affect all countries. If one country does not agree then they don't sign. Or they negotiate provisos to cover their national circumstances.

First, if it requires voluntary compliance, how can it be considered a law. Law implies enforcement (key word force) to gain compliance. If it cannot be enforced, how can it be defined a law?

 

[SINthysist]

EBW

Currently, the Russians are in a state of impending economic collapse. Thier population is in decline, thier people are sick, many are dying and they do not have the resources for even basic medical care. They were being bouyed by high oil prices, but September 11, ended that.

Since then, thier focus has been on arms sales mainly to China and our enemies on the war on Terrorism. They are telling us to leave thier sphere of influence as are the Chinese and the corrupt Saudis regime.

Meanwhile, the are also slowly being infiltrated as a prelude to invasion by the Chinese, thier new closest allies. As the situation gaets more desparate, they will, predictably use desperate measures to shore themselves up. IN THIER WORLD VIEW< IF THEY BRING US, the U.S. down, THEN THEY WILL END UP STRONGER.

To this extent you should be paying attention.

Your grasp of geopolitics is what scares me. More than Lavy's, gee I love centralized government, and wouldn't a world central government be just the cat's meow...



















But it is nice to know that you run all your work through spell checkers and proof-readers, especially when you are really passionate about a topic that comes up on a board comprised mainly seekers of top-rate porn. I really admire your lofty intellectual capacities. Your debate by personal attack is a real good technique too. Of course, that is how Liberals like to win arguments. If you can sully your enemy completely just one time, the you render that opponent innefective for future discussions. Again, very admirable of you.

 

[lavender]

 

[patient1]

Excellent addition to the thread. Trying to get that pesky 1000 posts?

True. It's also a subtle commentary . I much prefer this discussion to the previous night's fight. I thought I might encourage more discussion by letting the participants know I was listening than by taking a side. Time will tell.

 

[SINthysist]

Well, they were in a Democracy and things were improving until the old regime, the old corruption, the Russian way took over.

But I use them and the Chinese as examples of two nation who gove a hoot about international law.

They pay it lip service when they need it and ignore it when it suits them.

Why just today, we have imposed Sanctions on China for ignoring "International" law.

You, we, must be careful that we do not slip back into that, trust 'em, they're good people, we just don't understand them yet mindset. The idea that we can work with them, we must be patient and unprovocative and establish laws and rules sounds nice and civil and it would be fortunate if more than 20% of the international world were nice and civil.

I think we respect our constitution and establish treaties only with those whom (maybe even who) we can trust. Hey, but what do I know?

 

[p_p_man]

You, we, must be careful that we do not slip back into that, trust 'em, they're good people, we just don't understand them yet mindset.

Hardly likely America will do that, considering they've just finished bugging the Chinese President's plane.

 

[SINthysist]

Charles R. Smith

does a column on Cyberwarfare. This morning he has an interesting piece on the possibility of the U.S. bugging the plane, but the PROBABILITY that it was the Chinese Military trying to get leverage on the leadership.

One simply must remember what kind of a place China is and how business is done in China.

 

[p_p_man]

and how business is done in China.

Environ?

 

[SINthysist]

Lorial...

 

[EthiopianPrince]

Russia and China are not the greatest threat to American hegemony. The greatest threat is the European Union, and there is probably not much we can do about it. But it will probably be for the best ... the EU has, in my opinion, better domestic and international policies than the USA.

 

[SINthysist]

They're all socialists. Trust me it's going nowhere, except maybe into International Bancruptcy court and then we can buy England for pennies on the pound and turn it into EuroDisney.

 

[p_p_man]

First, if it requires voluntary compliance, how can it be considered a law. Law implies enforcement (key word force) to gain compliance. If it cannot be enforced, how can it be defined a law?

It doesn't take long to untangle your peculiar type of populist logic but I find it an irritation even having to do so.

Of course International law requires compliance, voluntary or otherwise. So does everything else: society, a system of government (and before you mention them, yes, even dictatorships), a system of trade, an established method "doing things"; everything.

If the compliance isn't there neither is the law. It is never formulated and remains unsigned. Where you are losing track is by concentrating on the word itself and not on it's meaning.

International law is agreed and complied with by all parties concerned.

International Law does not have to be "enforced", this is where your own tangled thought process is mixing you up, it has to be followed and adhered to. If the law is not kept then certain sanctions can be imposed on the offending party. Such as taking away a "Most Favoured Nation" status, imposing trade barriers and so forth.

But if a nation does not comply with International law because it sees it as detrimental to it's own self interest then it's hardly likely to worry about any sanctions imposed by the other participating countries.

International law does not need an international police force as you seem to think it does. It is not a criminal law.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by p_p_man
It doesn't take long to untangle your peculiar type of populist logic but I find it an irritation even having to do so.

Since I'm not a populist, you're going to have even more difficulty since you don't know what you're working with. And isn't "populist logic" an oxymoron?

Originally posted by p_p_man
Of course International law requires compliance, voluntary or otherwise. So does everything else: society, a system of government (and before you mention them, yes, even dictatorships), a system of trade, an established method "doing things"; everything.

First, if compliance is REQUIRED as you state, that necessarily implies by force as a last resort. And part of my point is, if the International Law conflicts with a nation's law, which is to be enforced? If the Int'l Law is enforceable, it necessarily supercedes the nation's law. If it is not enforceable, it is nothing more than a non-binding agreement. But all you've done here is to somewhat convolute the same idea I expressed. But law by necessity implies universal applicability to all within its jurisdiction. And since we are discussing Int'l Law, how do you justify non-universal applicability?

And can you please enlighten me on the role of law in a system of trade?

Originally posted by p_p_man
If the compliance isn't there neither is the law. It is never formulated and remains unsigned. Where you are losing track is by concentrating on the word itself and not on it's meaning.

International law is agreed and complied with by all parties concerned.

I'm unable to detect any qualitative distinction between your statement and my question. And where I'm losing track is trying to follow your explanation. How can I concentrate on the word without of necessity being attentive to its meaning? That's a concept that leaves me baffled.

Originally posted by p_p_man
International Law does not have to be "enforced", this is where your own tangled thought process is mixing you up, it has to be followed and adhered to. If the law is not kept then certain sanctions can be imposed on the offending party. Such as taking away a "Most Favoured Nation" status, imposing trade barriers and so forth.

You first tell me that Int'l Law does NOT have to be enforced, then you explain to me how it is to be enforced. Please, the whiplash is uncomfortable!

Originally posted by p_p_man
But if a nation does not comply with International law because it sees it as detrimental to it's own self interest then it's hardly likely to worry about any sanctions imposed by the other participating countries.

How about an example of a law that would be beneficial to some nations and disadvantageous to others. I'm hard pressed to identify how a law, ostensibly a means of promoting justice, can benefit one society and to the detriment of another. That is irrational. If it's a good law, it benefits all. If it's a bad law, i. e., it benefits some at the expense of others, it should never have existed and should be repealed.

Originally posted by p_p_man
International law does not need an international police force as you seem to think it does. It is not a criminal law.

So you assert that there can/should be NO Int'l Criminal Law? I presume that then means the only legitimate Int'l Law is civil law?

But would it not make infinitely more sense to have universal criminal laws? Then, what is a criime in one place is a crime everywhere. What is not a crime in one place is not a crime anywhere.

That to me sounds like the ultimate in criminal law. There are no nasty surprises when you cross national borders.

And finally, if there is no mechanism of enforcement, how do you achieve compliance? Are we back to the explanation above regarding enforcement of laws that don't require enforcement?

 

[Texan]

I keep thinking this thread is going to die

so I don't post, and then it comes back. I'll be very brief.

In my opinion, the very concept of international law is silly. For a law to exist there must be an authority that is both capable and willing to enforce that law. The ONLY available practical tool of enforcement is a trade sanction. This means any country can simply measure the "price" of complying with a law against the "cost" of ignoring the law. The probability of getting caught in an act of violation must also be weighed.

Agreements can be unilaterally ended. Laws must be repealed. International agreements and treaties are good, but when they are no longer to the mutual benefit of all the agreeing countries, they should be ended (the ABM Treaty for example).

Agreements and treaties require VOLUNTARY compliance; laws require enforcement. Without enforcement, international laws are silly.