Another Abu Ghraib? - Page 19




 
--
Boots
 
March 31st, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
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".
March 31st, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
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?
March 31st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
In my view, you think you are the only educated person here. Do not assume that man.
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???

Quote:
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?
In any UN agreement is stablished the right to secession.
--
Boots
March 31st, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by staurofilakes
Quote:
In my view, you think you are the only educated person here. Do not assume that man.
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???.
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.
March 31st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
I think that the war in Yugoslavia was fine, it was not US, it was the OTAN. You just answered one of my questions.
March 31st, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by staurofilakes
I think that the war in Yugoslavia was fine, it was not US, it was the OTAN. You just answered one of my questions.
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.
March 31st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by staurofilakes
I think that the war in Yugoslavia was fine, it was not US, it was the OTAN. You just answered one of my questions.
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.
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??
March 31st, 2005  
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.
March 31st, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by staurofilakes

In any UN agreement is stablished the right to secession.
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.
March 31st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
- If a certain number of countries decide to create a tribunal (ICC) to judge certain crimes betwen the signers, is this bad???

Quote:
Your second question: yes, sure it's fine if both are treaty parties.
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???????