I will give you definition of international law: International law deals with the relationships between states, or between persons or entities in different states. It sub-divides into "public international law", and "private international law". When used without an adjective, "international law" generally refers to "public international law", and this article concentrates on that meaning.

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

I will give you definition of international law: International law deals with the relationships between states, or between persons or entities in different states. It sub-divides into "public international law", and "private international law". When used without an adjective, "international law" generally refers to "public international law", and this article concentrates on that meaning.

That's not a definition. Maybe a partial description, but not a definition.

Originally Posted by Redneck

That's not a definition. Maybe a partial description, but not a definition.

you are right, it was incomplete:

International law deals with the relationships between states, or between persons or entities in different states. It sub-divides into "public international law", and "private international law". When used without an adjective, "international law" generally refers to "public international law", and this article concentrates on that meaning.

Traditionally, international law had states as its sole subjects. With the proliferation over the last century of international organizations, they have been recognized as its subjects as well. More recent developments in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international trade law (e.g. NAFTA Chapter 11 actions) have led to individuals and corporations being increasingly seen as subjects of international law as well, something which goes against the traditional legal orthodoxy. Since international law increasingly governs much more than merely relations between sovereign states, it may be better defined as law decided and enforced at the international, as opposed to national level. See world government for trends and movements leading in this direction.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/international_law

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ernational+law

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

I will give you definition of international law: International law deals with the relationships between states, or between persons or entities in different states. It sub-divides into "public international law", and "private international law". When used without an adjective, "international law" generally refers to "public international law", and this article concentrates on that meaning.

You can define and break down all the subtilties of what defines International Law heck you throw in Maritime Law, Military Law, and the Magna Carta. But no matter how you define it, dissect it, codify it, or attempt to interpert it does not make the UN charter Law nor does it make the UN a legislative or judical body.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

You can define and break down all the subtilties of what defines International Law heck you throw in Maritime Law, Military Law, and the Magna Carta. But no matter how you define it, dissect it, codify it, or attempt to interpert it does not make the UN charter Law nor does it make the UN a legislative or judical body.

If you are part of the UN you have to carry out the Charter. That´s why you are a member of UN.If you are not gonna pay attention to the rules, why being a part of the UN???
they are not law in the sense of law of a state, but they have power to oblige.
It seems that I am not gonna convince you and you to me neither, so lets quit this. I think that all the definitions that I posted were pretty clear......

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

If you are part of the UN you have to carry out the Charter. That´s why you are a member of UN.If you are not gonna pay attention to the rules, why being a part of the UN???
they are not law in the sense of law of a state, but they have power to oblige.
It seems that I am not gonna convince you and you to me neither, so lets quit this. I think that all the definitions that I posted were pretty clear......

No you do not have to carry out the Charter if it contradicts with the best interests of your Nation. All Nations would have to dispose of their own laws if that were true, and their self determination.

Right they are not laws. How do they have the power to oblige? Removal of the State from the Organization? Resolutions against the State? No teeth.

BTW: I never questioned your definitions or catagories of International Law. I questioned your classafiction of the UN Charter as an enforceable Statute of International Law and the UN itself as a Judicial and Legislative Body.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

No you do not have to carry out the Charter if it contradicts with the best interests of your Nation. All Nations would have to dispose of their own laws if that were true, and their self determinatio

Right they are not laws. How do they have the power to oblige? Removal of the State from the Organization? Resolutions against the State? No teeth.

BTW: I never questioned your definitions or catagories of International Law. I questioned your classafiction of the UN Charter as an enforceable Statute of International Law and the UN itself as a Judicial and Legislative Body.

Obviously the UN is not a judicial body, but it is an International Organization that have created some tribunal, such us the international court,this court can judge the countries that haved signatured it.. The resolutions are not laws, but they obligue to the countries in many ways

They can convene any group they want and call it a "court" or "tribunal" but the fact remains it's judgements are unenforceable. It renders opinion only. It can not levy and enforce punishment to individuals or states. It cannot compell incarceration payment of fines or changes in policy. It can reccomend embargos as it did in the case of Iraq but it has no way to enforce the embargo upon member nations, i.e. France and Germany in the case of Iraq.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

They can convene any group they want and call it a "court" or "tribunal" but the fact remains it's judgements are unenforceable. It renders opinion only. It can not levy and enforce punishment to individuals or states. It cannot compell incarceration payment of fines or changes in policy. It can reccomend embargos as it did in the case of Iraq but it has no way to enforce the embargo upon member nations, i.e. France and Germany in the case of Iraq.

Okey, for example here there is a list of the trials in the Yugoslavia International Court(ICTY):

http://www.un.org/icty/cases/indictindex-e.htm


The UNSC created in 1993 the ICTY to bring justice to persons allegedly responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, to render justice to the victims, to deter further crimes, and to contribute to the restoration of peace by promoting reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia

So far, the ICTY has brought in 134 indictments. The prosecutor's office has secured nineteen convictions to five acquittals, with fifty-one defendants currently detained at The Hague. The ICTY does create a precedent,and it's a precedent that many powerful governments wouldn't like.If you can have a tribunal for Yugoslavia, why couldn't you have one with jurisdiction over, say, the U.S.?

Once more, International Law does have power, I understand the that you do not like it, but it is a fact.

They can convene any group they want and call it a "court" or "tribunal" but the fact remains it's judgements are unenforceable

Remember that concerning the ICC, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven countries voted against it (including China, Israel, Iraq, and the United States) http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/

What is the maximum sentence of the Court?
The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The Court plans to have pre-trial detention facilities in The Hague. A sentence of imprisonment will be served in a state that has indicated its willingness to incarcerate a convicted person. The enforcement of a sentence of imprisonment in the host State is subject to the supervision of the Court and must be consistent with international standards governing treatment of prisoners, including the right of prisoners to be free of any torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment.

Conclusion: International law has powe for those countries that accepted the ICC, and as we saw above just countries such us Irak,China,Israel and US said NO, why??? We all know the answer