Does international law exist? (was Re: [POLITICS/IRAQ] Thank God for the death of the UN ( JC))

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 01:18:32 MST

  • Next message: Michael M. Butler: "Antii-SARS Praxis, was Re: SARS - the extropian virus"

    John Clarke writes:
    [Aside: I'll be away from my net connection for the weekend
    but back on Monday]

    > "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
    >
    > >Would it be fair to characterise your position as being scornful
    > > not just of international law them but of law generally?
    >
    > No not at all, I obey most laws even laws I don't like because
    > I'm afraid of the consequences if I don't.
    >
    > >But perhaps with some extra contempt for international law?
    >
    > I don't have contempt for international law and who knows
    > someday it might actually exist but it doesn't now. I don't have
    > contempt for the international suggestions that do actually exist
    > either, in fact some of them are quite wise but laws they are not.

    I don't understand John. Do you doubt that the UN Charter exists
    and has been signed (and ratified) by the United States and other
    member nations? Or are you saying, as I think you are, that it does
    exist but that it is not international law?

    According to the UN Charter, the USA actually holds the signed
    documents. The papers that are the ratified original documents.

    Lets say for the moment that you did agree that such did exist.

    Lets also say that other people were widely referring to the
    mutual obligations that the respective signatories had accepted by
    signing on behalf of their countries by the phrase "international law".
    Would you still hold that international law did not exist. Even if say
    President Bush and a whole bunch of other US authorities said that
    it did?

    I haven't checked yet but I reckon Google could probably find us
    some pretty good evidence that both (a) "international law" has
    meaning as a phrase - ie. it is generally an understood and used
    term and (b) that authorities in the US also used the term. I.e.
    They also agreed that "international law" is an appropriate and
    meaningful term to decribe such things as the UN Charter and
    Geneva conventions.

    But would that be enough evidence to satisfy you that international
    law did exist and that you were mistaken to think it did not?
     
    (Aside: I am reminded of a story of a hyper sceptic who doubted
    everything and would only wiggle his little finger to indicate that he
    thought he had heard a question but was not even sufficiently sure
    that it was sensible and meaningful enough to warrant answering?)

    I'm trying to understand what evidence if any would be sufficient
    for you to change your mind. Is your current opinion in any way
    a falsifiable hypothesis to you?

    I haven't had a chance to check out the rest of your post yet
    but perhaps this is sensible place to fork the thread. After
    all the existence of international law or otherwise would seem
    to be pretty important and pretty objectively determinable.

    Regards,
    Brett Paatsch

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 01:00:55 MST