-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thinking about this further, escrow services came to mind. Namely,
when two countries sign a treaty, they agree on a neutral third party
as an arbitrator, and both present the arbitrator with a check for an
agreed-upon amount. The arbitrator has the resources to monitor
compliance with this treaty (and is compensated for their troubles by
the principals). If the arbitrator finds that the treaty has been
violated, it cashes the check from the side that violated it and gives
the money to the other side.
Then, the sincerity level of a government entering into a treaty could
be assigned a numerical value taking into account how much money
they're putting on the line as a percentage of their tax income and
their previous history of defaults on treaties (just like S&P publish
ratings for how likely governments are to default on their business
commitments).
This way, an open market for international law (competing arbitration
agencies) can exist without the arbitration agencies having to be
sufficiently well armed to enforce treaties broken by, say, the US or
China. Palestinians and Israelis can continue making "agreements" with
each other in bad faith, but nobody will take these agreements
seriously until both sides put their money where their big mouths are.
Whadja'll think?
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Alex F. Bokov wrote:
> What if you lived in anarchotopia. Some people were better armed than
> others, but there was no real police force. There were arbitration
> agents, and even a half-assed toothless "United Neighbors"
> organization that passed all kinds of resolutions but compliance with
> their rulings was in effect voluntary. There was also a big mean biker
> gang armed with M16's, grenades, and missile launchers. Let's say they
> were called the Yanks. They were the biggest opponents of the commie
> liberals at the United Neighbors organization, denouncing it (rightly)
> as an attempt at world government. Now let's say there's another gang,
> led by one Osama Bin Rotten. They're not yet as well armed but they
> are young, sneaky, hungry, and anxious to see if the Yanks are as
> tough as they pretend to be.
>
> A major rumble is brewing and you're beginning to worry that in the
> process the whole neighborhood will get burned down.
>
> How would you propose to resolve this issue without submitting to a
> world government nor a despotism of the Yanks or Bin Rotten?
>
> Purpose: to take the geopolitical mess and put it in a more familiar
> contex in order to better understand the dilemma of preserving a
> multipolar and autonomous world yet also a peaceful/lawful one.
- --
* I believe that the majority of the world's Muslims are good, *
* honorable people. If you are a Muslim and want to reassure me and *
* others that you are part of this good, honorable majority, all *
* you need to say are nine simple words: "I OPPOSE the Wahhabi cult *
* and its Jihad." *
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQBpAwUBO8x4DJvUJaRNHMexAQE5PQKZARjuWMBZwja3VaI/u43aHzOu+1NvNy2M
ulWMKnLBDX/bk32V6RHmPlyq7T7iHgU3V4ieRBUxVsvyHDV19vg/kPs3Dos9RR3L
LQSNU67VgValj6iW
=neT6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT