From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 09:04:05 MST
"Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
>I don't understand John. Do you doubt that the UN Charter exists
No of course not.
>Or are you saying, as I think you are, that it does
>exist but that it is not international law?
Bingo.
>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.
Well, words can sound the same but have unrelated meanings, like see and sea
or to and two, so if you insist on using the same word at least spell in
differently to avoid confusion, I humbly suggest "international blaw".
>Even if say President Bush and a whole bunch of other US authorities said
>that it did?
If President Bush said the laws of motion no longer exist that wouldn't make
it so, if President Bush says international laws exist that wouldn't make it
so. Anything that says "you must do what I say or absolutely nothing will
happen to you" is not a law, it is a suggestion.
>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 [...] But would that be enough evidence to satisfy
>you that international law did exist and that you were mistaken to think
>it did not?
When I was in the third grade somebody brought a rabbit to class for show
and tell, a kid asked if it was a boy rabbit or a girl rabbit, nobody knew.
The teacher thought she knew how to find out, the class would vote on it.
Even at the time I wasn't sure that was the best way to determine the truth.
>Is your current opinion in any way a falsifiable hypothesis to you?
Show me a history of bad things that have happened to powerful countries
that broke international law and I am wrong.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 09:16:03 MST