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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>define soldier.
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.<hr></blockquote>
[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>
<strong>You will never be able to convince bunge that the UN doesn't trump any nation's constitution. AFAIK, the UN does not set international law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But as far as our constitution is concerned, it does. Your beliefs and mine don't mean crap. The constitution does.
Funny how scared some of you are of a little democracy. I think some of you would be better off with a dictator like Saddam or Kim Jong Il, or a government like Communist China.
[quote]Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>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?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, true, but what relevance does this have to the current conflict? And do you really belive the UN wouldn't intervene against a country that has not signed the UN charter?
(Just like a sovereign nation would act against a group (ethnic or other) that sets itself outside the "laws of the land"?)
[quote] 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 <hr></blockquote>
No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the UN has tools and legislature that regulates conflicts between sovereign nations. but this does not interfere with the sovereignty of these nations. But they also have the tools to make sovereign nations comply, like we see with Iraq. The problem is that the US, because of its exclusive position, sets itself above this. Much like a powerful group of people could do inside a sovereign nation. Cosa Nostra.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Never said it was. But the principle of Sovereignty applies for all nations, at least that's how I interpret both the laws of my own country and the UN charter.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
The same is the case with the laws of sovereign nations. Citizens are, in theory, bound by the laws of their nations, but crime occurs. And is more common where laws are less respected. Be that because of social issues, illegitimacy of a government or internal turmoil etc.
As long as Public international law does not interfere with national sovereignty, but builds on the same principles, and helps guarantee the national sovereignty of the nations of this world, there is no conflict.
The unwillingness of nations to follow International law, can only be attributed to the sorry state of this world and the inadequacy of the institutions that are supposed to uphold international law. Like I suspect is also the situation in places with high crime-rates, like Jamaica, Rio, South Central and Wall Street.
The whole concept of the Security Council is very doubtful in a democratic perspective.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Do you see Nuremberg as insignificant?
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
So you see no moral difference between a stone trowing 12 year old and the pilot of an apache helicopter? And your attacking my education!?! Go re-read some basic humanist philosophy. I expect you have the books already.
[quote]That I'm telling where I'd look for it doesn't mean I'd ?get down on it? for you. <hr></blockquote>
Get down on planet earth i meant. Sorry for the confusion. The best place to start looking for definitions of "combatants" would be Public International law, Since most nations have slightly different definitions here, (if any at all).
I haven't read the preceeding pages (I'm on dialup)but I thought it was hilarious that a human sheild should parade himself on TV saying "oh no, the gov isn't telling us where to go" (paraphrase) and then buggering off as soon as he was asked to straddle a coolant pipe.
I wonder how many civil lawsuits will come out of a war with Iraq? Every family of every human shield will want to sue <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
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?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>yes, true, but what relevance does this have to the current conflict? And do you really belive the UN wouldn't intervene against a country that has not signed the UN charter?
(Just like a sovereign nation would act against a group (ethnic or other) that sets itself outside the "laws of the land"?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter.
[quote]<strong>No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the UN has tools and legislature?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tools? Yes.
Legislature? No.
The U.N. has no legislative authority.
[quote]<strong>?that regulates conflicts between sovereign nations. but this does not interfere with the sovereignty of these nations. But they also have the tools to make sovereign nations comply, like we see with Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To comply, yes, but only to the binding commitments to which these countries are bound by there own signature.
[quote]<strong>The problem is that the US, because of its exclusive position, sets itself above this. Much like a powerful group of people could do inside a sovereign nation. Cosa Nostra.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know any case where the U.S. doesn't comply to its own signed binding commitments, or is otherwise in breach of protocol. It's certainly skewing it to its favour in accordance with its clout, and so do most member states.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Never said it was. But the principle of Sovereignty applies for all nations, at least that's how I interpret both the laws of my own country and the UN charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All states keep their full sovereingnity, that's what I've been saying here.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>The same is the case with the laws of sovereign nations. Citizens are, in theory, bound by the laws of their nations, but crime occurs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it isn't the same.
States are bound only by the very international commitments, treaties and conventions, etc? they have signed by their own agreements; citizens are bound by the all laws of the eland, thogh in democracies they have a say via their elected legislature.
Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the ?red? international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the ?Red? treaty.
State B has signed the ?red?, ?off-white?, and ?aubergine? treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to ?Red? treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Do you see Nuremberg as insignificant?</strong><hr></blockquote>
On the contrary, they very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In sucn matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So you see no moral difference between a stone trowing 12 year old and the pilot of an apache helicopter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.
[quote]<strong>And your attacking my education!?! Go re-read some basic humanist philosophy. I expect you have the books already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education.
[quote]<strong>Get down on planet earth i meant. Sorry for the confusion. The best place to start looking for definitions of "combatants" would be Public International law, Since most nations have slightly different definitions here, (if any at all).]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things.
Back on Planet Earth, combatants are those people with weapons, who are participating in a combat.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
No he's black. That would be racist. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with Scott here. He is quite right to remind us that Kofi Annan is black. He reminds us also that all the courts in the developed nations are weighted in the favour of black people and that this is so unjust: thanks, Scott.
I don't like it any more than you do, Scott, and the sooner we have a white man in charge of the UN again the sooner I'll be comfortable knowing that you can park a limousine outside the UN building without it running the risk of losing its hubcaps. (Apparently since Annan took over, muggings in the UN complex multiplied by something like eight times! Can you imagine.)
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
You will never be able to convince bunge that the UN doesn't trump any nation's constitution. AFAIK, the UN does not set international law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>But as far as our constitution is concerned, it does. Your beliefs and mine don't mean crap. The constitution does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. constitution doesn't say whether the U.N. is a legislative body or not (and it is not), as this is no concern for the U.S. constitution.
As far as the U.N. itself is concerned (cf. one of my previous messages), no state gives up an ounce of its sovereingity by becoming a member, which is no concern for the U.S. constitution either.
The U.S. constitution doesn't say whether the U.N. is a legislative body or not (and it is not), as this is no concern for the U.S. constitution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>define soldier.
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.<hr></blockquote>
[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>
Maybe he was just humming a song by Cool and the Gang?
<strong>You will never be able to convince bunge that the UN doesn't trump any nation's constitution. AFAIK, the UN does not set international law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But as far as our constitution is concerned, it does. Your beliefs and mine don't mean crap. The constitution does.
<strong>
The only straw-man argument happening here is your method of distinguishing what is legitimate and what is illegitimate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it's what we agreed to when we signed the UN Charter. It's not that complicated since everything is written down already.
<strong>What if the UN breaks its own rules? Do we put Annan up before a War Crimes Tribunal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No he's black. That would be racist.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>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?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, true, but what relevance does this have to the current conflict? And do you really belive the UN wouldn't intervene against a country that has not signed the UN charter?
(Just like a sovereign nation would act against a group (ethnic or other) that sets itself outside the "laws of the land"?)
[quote] 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 <hr></blockquote>
No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the UN has tools and legislature that regulates conflicts between sovereign nations. but this does not interfere with the sovereignty of these nations. But they also have the tools to make sovereign nations comply, like we see with Iraq. The problem is that the US, because of its exclusive position, sets itself above this. Much like a powerful group of people could do inside a sovereign nation. Cosa Nostra.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Never said it was. But the principle of Sovereignty applies for all nations, at least that's how I interpret both the laws of my own country and the UN charter.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
The same is the case with the laws of sovereign nations. Citizens are, in theory, bound by the laws of their nations, but crime occurs. And is more common where laws are less respected. Be that because of social issues, illegitimacy of a government or internal turmoil etc.
As long as Public international law does not interfere with national sovereignty, but builds on the same principles, and helps guarantee the national sovereignty of the nations of this world, there is no conflict.
The unwillingness of nations to follow International law, can only be attributed to the sorry state of this world and the inadequacy of the institutions that are supposed to uphold international law. Like I suspect is also the situation in places with high crime-rates, like Jamaica, Rio, South Central and Wall Street.
The whole concept of the Security Council is very doubtful in a democratic perspective.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Do you see Nuremberg as insignificant?
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
So you see no moral difference between a stone trowing 12 year old and the pilot of an apache helicopter? And your attacking my education!?! Go re-read some basic humanist philosophy. I expect you have the books already.
[quote]That I'm telling where I'd look for it doesn't mean I'd ?get down on it? for you. <hr></blockquote>
Get down on planet earth i meant. Sorry for the confusion. The best place to start looking for definitions of "combatants" would be Public International law, Since most nations have slightly different definitions here, (if any at all).
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Laughs.
<strong>Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
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?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>yes, true, but what relevance does this have to the current conflict? And do you really belive the UN wouldn't intervene against a country that has not signed the UN charter?
(Just like a sovereign nation would act against a group (ethnic or other) that sets itself outside the "laws of the land"?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter.
[quote]<strong>No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the UN has tools and legislature?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tools? Yes.
Legislature? No.
The U.N. has no legislative authority.
[quote]<strong>?that regulates conflicts between sovereign nations. but this does not interfere with the sovereignty of these nations. But they also have the tools to make sovereign nations comply, like we see with Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To comply, yes, but only to the binding commitments to which these countries are bound by there own signature.
[quote]<strong>The problem is that the US, because of its exclusive position, sets itself above this. Much like a powerful group of people could do inside a sovereign nation. Cosa Nostra.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know any case where the U.S. doesn't comply to its own signed binding commitments, or is otherwise in breach of protocol. It's certainly skewing it to its favour in accordance with its clout, and so do most member states.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Never said it was. But the principle of Sovereignty applies for all nations, at least that's how I interpret both the laws of my own country and the UN charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All states keep their full sovereingnity, that's what I've been saying here.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>The same is the case with the laws of sovereign nations. Citizens are, in theory, bound by the laws of their nations, but crime occurs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it isn't the same.
States are bound only by the very international commitments, treaties and conventions, etc? they have signed by their own agreements; citizens are bound by the all laws of the eland, thogh in democracies they have a say via their elected legislature.
Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the ?red? international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the ?Red? treaty.
State B has signed the ?red?, ?off-white?, and ?aubergine? treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to ?Red? treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Do you see Nuremberg as insignificant?</strong><hr></blockquote>
On the contrary, they very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In sucn matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So you see no moral difference between a stone trowing 12 year old and the pilot of an apache helicopter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.
[quote]<strong>And your attacking my education!?! Go re-read some basic humanist philosophy. I expect you have the books already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education.
[quote]<strong>Get down on planet earth i meant. Sorry for the confusion. The best place to start looking for definitions of "combatants" would be Public International law, Since most nations have slightly different definitions here, (if any at all).]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things.
Back on Planet Earth, combatants are those people with weapons, who are participating in a combat.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
No he's black. That would be racist.
I agree with Scott here. He is quite right to remind us that Kofi Annan is black. He reminds us also that all the courts in the developed nations are weighted in the favour of black people and that this is so unjust: thanks, Scott.
I don't like it any more than you do, Scott, and the sooner we have a white man in charge of the UN again the sooner I'll be comfortable knowing that you can park a limousine outside the UN building without it running the risk of losing its hubcaps. (Apparently since Annan took over, muggings in the UN complex multiplied by something like eight times! Can you imagine.)
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
Just to trying to establish once and for all how this works, you understand.
You will never be able to convince bunge that the UN doesn't trump any nation's constitution. AFAIK, the UN does not set international law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>But as far as our constitution is concerned, it does. Your beliefs and mine don't mean crap. The constitution does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. constitution doesn't say whether the U.N. is a legislative body or not (and it is not), as this is no concern for the U.S. constitution.
As far as the U.N. itself is concerned (cf. one of my previous messages), no state gives up an ounce of its sovereingity by becoming a member, which is no concern for the U.S. constitution either.
<strong>
The U.S. constitution doesn't say whether the U.N. is a legislative body or not (and it is not), as this is no concern for the U.S. constitution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Go give it a read.