Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (111590)	8/15/2003 2:11:58 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Once again, you missed the point. According to the Constitution, it only takes an act of Congress to withdraw from a treaty or any of its provisions. In other words, "international law" is, in this country, inferior to national sovereignty. So, while we cannot lay down the law to other countries, they cannot make us obey international law. We honor treaties because it is prudent, normally, that is all.......

To: GST who wrote (111590)	8/16/2003 3:15:46 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

...and there is no "world government." You continue to argue as if the UN is the legislature of a world confederacy, and "international law" is handed down as law superior to national law. That is a fiction and a fantasy. "International law" is national law - it is negotiated between nations, and enacted as national law in national legislatures as treaties. Treaties which can be revoked by a similar act of the national legislature, usually with the provision of six months notice to be polite. Compliance with international law is a matter of consent - compliance is voluntary. The law of the State that binds citizens is, in contrast, coercive - compliance is obligatory. If you can not grasp this, I can not help you. Derek