From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 19:25:53 MST
John Clarke writes:
> "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.
Silly or not. That's what quite a lot of lawyers including US
lawyers call it.
It doesn't seem that silly to me.
When I see "international law" I see it something like this
"inter" - "national" "law"
Which part of this strikes you as the silly bit?
> > 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".
You do have some interesting notions of law. I'm not surprised
that it seems silly to you. Still (like me) your are only a youngster
of less than 120, so (like me) there is probably stuff you have to
learn yet. Lots of things can seem silly to us when we are young.
You may recall that the first Gulf War, to expell an illegal and
aggressive invasion of Kuwait was in fact carried out under
a UN resolution. Indeed President Bush senior was the
US President on that occassion and in my view he did the UN, the
US and himself much credit in the way he carried out his duties
- but I digress. That was a time when the US was enforcing
international law.
> Stop using
> silly euphemisms and call it by what it is "International
> Suggestions";
I did not coin the term international law.
If you want to get it banned you'd need to take it up with someone
more powerful than me. Perhaps someone in the Bush administration.
You might even get some enthusiasm there for your own term of
"international suggestions" ;-)
Judging by the job that is being done through the media by those
controlling the information about the war it certainly seems that some
in the military and in politics have seen the movie Wag the Dog.
Perhaps they are on the lookout for a few good euphamism coiners.
But careful, remember what happened to character Dustin Hofman
was playing at the end.
>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.
Ah ha.
>
> >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?
There is enforcement. It arises out of the consequences of
having a bad reputation. Lets say that one of the five was
smart and strong and had charisma and leadership abilities
and in order to set up the new society as he saw fit he wanted
to persued the others to work together and do what he wanted.
Sort of a proto-ecomomic rationalist perhaps. Then say he
breached his word to one or more of them over time. He'd
still be strong, he'd still be smart, but the offended persons
would not forget the injury. And the guy is not always smart
and he will not always be strong. And sometimes he needs
to sleep.
>
> > 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 I wasn't talking about ducks. You brought them up.
>
> >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.
Well the world war 11 leaders Roosevelt and Churchill saw some
merit in establishing the UN Charter.
>
> > 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.
It is not just the words that one puts on (paper) that makes
international law (or any other law). It is the strenght and courage
and conviction of those who think that promises should be kept
so that there is the possibility, the precious possibility of peace.
>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".
No typo. I meant falls. Perhaps I should have said "rises".
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note to newbies]: The views above are only the views of this poster.
For a statement of Extropian Principles see:
http://www.extropy.org/ideas/principles.html
Other documents worth a look:
The Constitution of the United States of America.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
The Charter of The United Nations.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 19:07:23 MST