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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (211917)	7/13/2007 1:55:16 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

But in the real world of international relations, countries do abrogate treaties. One of the first the US abrogated was the Revolutionary war treaty with France, abrogated after the French revolution. Other countries change policies or governments or conditions change, so treaties get abrogated. The difference between contracts is that individuals don't have the sovereign right to abrogate contracts at will. As for isolationism, I think that piece on CAFTA directly addresses the point. It's not like folks from different countries can't trade without treaties. You shouldn't have to document it. In the real world, I think such treaties are practical necessitities. And they make trade freer than it realistically would be without them. You can always imagine a theoretical world where there are no domestic interests (business, labor, whatever) lobbying for protection and all other nations practice free trade too, but that isn't the way the real world is.

To: Lane3 who wrote (211917)	7/13/2007 2:02:47 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

It's not nice to abrogate treaties. Not nice to back out of any contract. You don't sign contracts with the intention of backing out later. Lack of good faith. Better not to sign in the first place Every treaty implicitly provides for a party to withdraw. No treaty may bind a State without its consent as a matter of sovereignty. It isn't contract law. There's a difference between withdrawing from and breaking a treaty. If you repudiate a contract, the other party can get damages. If a State repudiates a treaty, that is - withdraws, that is entirely within the power of the State and there is no wrong done. As for isolationism, I think that piece on CAFTA directly addresses the point. It's not like folks from different countries can't trade without treaties. You shouldn't have to document it That is standard out-there big-L libertarian thinking on Paul's part. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate international trade, and that includes regulating it by acceding to a set of standards agreed upon in a treaty. There's nothing unconstitutional or improper about it. The treaty doesn't "document" trade. It sets agreed-upon guidelines for State behavior and provides a venue to settle disputes amongst States, instead of resorting to the traditional method of resolving trade disputes. In the old days you bombed your debtors and seized their ports until the debt was paid.