Then it comes down to the definition of torture and who is eligible to be protected under this law.
I think that's the wishy washy bit.

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

It would be insane, even if it does not prevent military skermishes from popping up all round the globe everyday, as far as the law of the sea is concerned.
My point is that International Law is something to be wary of when it comes to your approach. As you are the first one to say a war can be legitimate even if it takes place out of international law context.

I did not say that it was legitimate, I said it was necesary. All over the world there is a 30 miles limit for the territorial waters, this was stablished in an international agreement and it is respected by almost every country.

Let me be provocative, stauroflakes: when was the Law of the Sea convention signed?

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Then it comes down to the definition of torture and who is eligible to be protected under this law.
I think that's the wishy washy bit.

Well, nobody can be tortured under any circuntances, and this is wrotten in the text.
Article 2(http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html)
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.



I just pointed that agreement as an example anyway, there are many others...

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Let me be provocative, stauroflakes: when was the Law of the Sea convention signed?

It was in Geneva in 1958, but there have been many modifications.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

Right. I was wondering how tragic the situation was earlier than then. Let's say 1945-58.

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Right. I was wondering how tragic the situation was earlier than then. Let's say 1945-58.

You can imagine, it was caotic. But going to our issue, is international law forceable betewen the signers???
I that absolutily YES, then why do you sign......

Well, IF it is actually enforceable then it's ok, whats the prob man?
The UN resolutions are not enforceable, so I find it ridiculous when people calls up for the UN authority.
If I drive over a guy they will jail me: that makes sense when the guy's family calls up for justice.

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Well, IF it is actually enforceable then it's ok, whats the prob man?
The UN resolutions are not enforceable, so I find it ridiculous when people calls up for the UN authority.
If I drive over a guy they will jail me: that makes sense when the guy's family calls up for justice.

Well, I was talking about International Law. I know that the UN Resolutions arn´t law. But some people here say International Law is unenforceable, my point is, if you sign a document where you compromised to act in a certain way you have to do it, if you don´t sanctions will come upon to you.

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

Well, I was talking about International Law. I know that the UN Resolutions arn´t law. But some people here say International Law is unenforceable, my point is, if you sign a document where you compromised to act in a certain way you have to do it, if you don´t sanctions will come upon to you.

I really don't think anyone could argue on that.