From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 08:14:11 MST
"Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
> Agreements embodied in treaties and in the UN Charter are
> referred to as international law
What a silly name.
> But laws, including international laws, that are breached,
> are still laws.
If unlike the second law of thermodynamics it is possible to violate the law
and unlike the criminal laws in most nations punishing violators is not even
attempted then it most certainly does not deserve the lofty word "law". Stop
using silly euphemisms and call it by what it is "International Suggestions"
; and I might add Americans would be absolute fools to trust their lives
that such a pathetic concept will protect them from another 911 attack, they
quite sensibly trust a cruse missile more.
>5 people washed up on a desert island or marooned in space
>could define a set of laws to live by if they so choose
But without enforcement what's the point of doing so?
> If any of them exercise bad faith in relation to the agreed
>obligations then the law may not be *enforced* but it is still
>the law
So, you're saying it doesn't look like a duck, it doesn't walk like a duck,
it doesn't quack like a duck, but it's still a duck. I don't think so.
>No existing security council member is claiming that
>international law does not exist.
That's true and easy to see why; talk of international law makes for
beautiful chin music, but nobody is dumb enough to bet their life on it
protecting them.
> International law can be built in large increments by treaties
You can put any words you like on processed dead trees but international law
will never be worthy of the name until it has muscle, and that means
recognition that sometimes war is necessary and that inevitably means some
innocent people will get killed. I just don't see that happening anytime
soon in the international community; for example I can't imagine the Green
Party in Germany agreeing to a war under any circumstances.
>Under the UN Charter the enforceability of UN resolutions falls
> to the security council
It must be a typo, I think you wanted to say "fails the security council".
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 08:25:58 MST