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 (198905)	8/23/2006 6:03:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No matter what Congress might do, jus cogens (higher law) does not recognize any country's effort to adjust its laws What type of higher law do you mean. The US is sovereign. It is duty bound to follow agreements but it doesn't face any higher law, and it won't until and unless there is a world government. Its possible that it could choose to let some other body exercise authority over Americans but that would be a decision of the US government. Its also possible that some future powerful force could defeat the US and impose terms on it, but that would be a matter of force not law. As for article 3 it is applicable in case of armed conflict "not of international character" and if the fighting happened to take place in a country that isn't a signatory than it doesn't apply. "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:" unhchr.ch Also "As has been stated elsewhere, the Geneva Conventions, 1949 do not impose any obligation on state parties to make law punishing the violation of the common article 3, which is not a grave breach according to the Conventions. The only obligation imposed upon state is to permit international organizations, such as ICRC, when it offers assistance." worldlii.org That having been said in true obvious cases of serious abuse a very good case can be made that there should be some form of justice, and that if there isn't a specific national law against it that there should be. Rape and murder would fall in to that category (and already would be illegal), but that wouldn't be the limit. We may have no agreed to limitation under the article but that doesn't mean that we don't have our own laws and moral standards.