Another Abu Ghraib?

Uhm, if I may, stauroflakes, your approach to the world is childish. It is over-legalistic, and that's a flaw.
In my view, you think you are the only educated person here. Do not assume that man.
I believe 03 and RN have been going way closer to the truth of things than you have been doing in weeks on the board with your "international public law" approach.
It couldn't have been explained better than how 03 has: "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".
 
Strauo, though your defense of the UN "laws" are noble, you must realize how unrealistic they are.
First of all, right to self determination.
It's a great idea and it's good for the liberation of occupied countries but what do you feel about Catalunya's calls for seccession from the rest of Spain? And what if Pays Vasco follows? Then ... well that place with Ourense and La Coruna? But then what about Spain's right for preservation of the state?
Basically they're all nice ideas but no one can seem to really make anything useful out of them.
And 03 is right, you just cannot have laws that are unenforceable. Just having that piece of paper with words on it is not good enough. Basically what it means is that it's got to be realistic enough for it to work, and important enough for it to be worth using force to maintain.

Also note: The UN has STILL been unable to agree on a definition of terrorism. And that problem has been dogging us since the 1970s.

Yikes. This thread has gone off topic. But the thing is it seems interesting enough. Could the mods do something to create a split thread regarding UN laws discussion?
 
In my view, you think you are the only educated person here. Do not assume that man.
Click to expand...
You are wrong,I do not have that opinion.

I have a few questions for you:

-You said that the Courts created by UN do not worth anything, should we eliminate ICTY & ICTR??

-Should we let Milosevic free???

- If a certain number of countries decide to create a tribunal (ICC) to judge certain crimes betwen the signers, is this bad???




-The Law of the Sea is not International Law???

It's a great idea and it's good for the liberation of occupied countries but what do you feel about Catalunya's calls for seccession from the rest of Spain? And what if Pays Vasco follows? Then ... well that place with Ourense and La Coruna? But then what about Spain's right for preservation of the state?
Click to expand...

In any UN agreement is stablished the right to secession.
 
staurofilakes said:
In my view, you think you are the only educated person here. Do not assume that man.
Click to expand...
You are wrong,I do not have that opinion.

I have a few questions for you:

-You said that the Courts created by UN do not worth anything, should we eliminate ICTY & ICTR??

-Should we let Milosevic free???

- If a certain number of countries decide to create a tribunal (ICC) to judge certain crimes betwen the signers, is this bad???.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether you are talking to me or not here, but:

"Should we let Milosevic free? should we eliminate ICTY?"

Funny, because getting Milosevic jailed and prosecuting many Serbian war criminals was made possible thanks to an armed intervention made by the US WITHOUT any UN consent. In other words, had it been up to the UN, Milosevic would be still sitting in Belgrade killing people. If he is not, you should thanks an "illegitimate" intervention.
 
I think that the war in Yugoslavia was fine, it was not US, it was the OTAN. You just answered one of my questions.
 
staurofilakes said:
I think that the war in Yugoslavia was fine, it was not US, it was the OTAN. You just answered one of my questions.
Click to expand...

See? your over-academic approach is childish. It was the mainly the US that did airstrikes on Yugoslavia. It wasn't Turkey, nor Portugal.
It was US and Italy to a lesser extent. Yeah NATO for the record though.

Your second question: yes, sure it's fine if both are treaty parties.
 
Italian Guy said:
staurofilakes said:
I think that the war in Yugoslavia was fine, it was not US, it was the OTAN. You just answered one of my questions.
Click to expand...

See? your over-academic approach is childish. It was the mainly the US that did airstrikes on Yugoslavia. It wasn't Turkey, nor Portugal.
It was US and Italy to a lesser extent. Yeah NATO for the record though.

Your second question: yes, sure it's fine if both are treaty parties.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you that there was no attack to any member of the OTAN, so acording to international law the law was illegal but necesary. The war on yugoslavia could have had a big influence in the region, remember that WWI started there.

We were discussing about the forceability of international law, what do you think about the law of the sea??? should we let every country have as many territorial waters as they want to??
 
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.
 
staurofilakes said:
In any UN agreement is stablished the right to secession.
Click to expand...

And you do realize how flawed this statement is, right? Basically if this was honored in full and without exception, EVERY wealthy part of each country would be crying out for independence in order to "cut away the fat" that takes up all their tax money.
 
- If a certain number of countries decide to create a tribunal (ICC) to judge certain crimes betwen the signers, is this bad???

Your second question: yes, sure it's fine if both are treaty parties.
Click to expand...

So, we will have to agree that then international law is forceable if all that parties signed them, right?? What is the difference then betewen this agreement and all the ones that has been taken by UN and signed by many countries like US??? For example the Conveny against torture???????
 
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.
 
Italian Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Italian Guy said:
Right. I was wondering how tragic the situation was earlier than then. Let's say 1945-58.
Click to expand...

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...... :roll:
 
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.
 
Italian Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
staurofilakes said:
Italian Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I really don't think anyone could argue on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top