[quote]Originally posted by New:
Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it takes two states to call it thus. That a treaty is signed between state A and state b doesn't make state C obligated to it because of it's called international.
[quote]<strong>Just as no democracy has a 100% of its people participate in its political processes. You logic is flawed to the extent that all your saying is that the few countries who haven't signed the UN Charter don't have to abide by it. The same logic used by; was the <a href="http://www.michiganmilitia.com/
" target="_blank">Michigan Militia?</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Those militiamen aren't sovereing states, they're citizens of their country, and therefore are obligated to the laws of that country, whether they participate in its politcal process or not.
What you imply is that all the world's conutries are citizens of the U.N., including states which aren't members, in the same way individuals are citizens of their respective country.
The U.N. is not a sovereign state, and its member states aren't it's citizens, so obviously neither are states which aaren't members.
[quote]<strong>Secondly, they are more than treaties. They are the result of hundreds of years of evolution of democratic principles. With your immense historical knowledge I'm frankly surprised that you seem so ignorant of this. To say there is "no universal legislature" is totally irrelevant. All laws are in principle artificial constructions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The laws of your country are vaild there because they stem from the priciple of national sovereingity as expressed by your democratically elected legislature. It is the law of the land, of a sovereign state weilding its sovereign authority.
The World is not a state, there is no single sovereignity encompassing all humanity
[quote]<strong>The aim of Public International Law has been to "elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare." and like I said, this goes back over a hundred years.
It builds on the principles of national sovereignty. Found in many democratic constitutions, including the American and French.Modern
Public international law became more than just a set of treaties with the Nuremberg process. The international war tribunal set up at the end of WWII to deal with the crimes of the nazi-regime. Nuremberg was very much legislation. Ribbentrop was executed, Göring took his own life to avoid the same destiny.
The principles of Nuremberg made way for the <a href="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
" target="_blank">Universal declaration of Human Rights</a>, one of the key pillars of Public International Law.
Are you prepared to write of Human Rights as "protocols and charters"? You don't see it going deeper than that?
The framework for use of force in international law is laid down in the UN Charter, signed by all parties in this conflict. And described by the International Court of Justice. They are quite easy to find.
You need to be careful where you thread here, because this is about the principles of Nuremberg, and in a broader view of democracy itself.
By calling it "just a set treaties", you risk "throwing the baby out with the tub-water" so to speak.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Countries are, in theory, bound by their signed international commitments, but their keeping these obligations depends mostly on said commitments' nature (some are binding, others are advisory, others yet solemn platitudes), on the countries' own decisions whether to abide by them or not, or on the resolve of other signatory states to act, militarily if need be, accordinly with those in breach of said commitments, if binding that is.
Hence the fact that international commitments, including binding ones, are respected in greatly varying degrees, from relative compliance to all out defiance.
and now a more personal note:
When it comes genocidal criminals and other such monsters, the whole affair of international law, treaties, protocols, is of slight importance.
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:When you're a soldier participating in combat (that's where armed people are fighting each other, you know?), you're a combatant, and any armed person from the other side participating in the combat is a combatant too.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
No, sorry, its just not that clear cut. the 200 people in Guantanamo are evidence of that. Apparently International Law is good enough to be used in classifying those guys as "illegal combatants". (correct term?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll try to restate it in simpler terms:
Any armed individual participating in a combat is a combatant.
If you fail to grasp the meaning of those simple words I suggest you get an education.
[quote]<strong>Where would you go looking for the source material?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Planet Earth would be a good start.
[quote]<strong>Then get down on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That I'm telling where I'd look for it doesn't mean I'd get down on it for you. I'm not your goddamn secretary.
Obviously, there are indeed holes in your education.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>