- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Amazing that that is the sum total of your contribution to this 43-page thread.
No, wait, never mind. It's not amazing at all.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
All I'm trying to say is that Israel has no tradition of custom to call upon that pre-date these treaties. They can't say "we've been doing this for hundreds of years, suck it."
How much of what is recognized by most of the world these days as international law defined strictly by custom, and not by treaties?
If most of the rest of the world defines the law of the sea via a particular treaty, and Israel is not a signatory nation, isn't it fair to say that Israel can't use the law of the sea to justify what they're doing?
If there is significant disagreement over what the law of the sea actually is -- custom versus treaty -- then that serves to further prove my point, that Israel can't claim some sort of universal standard to justify what they did.
Sorry, dont have time to sympathize with terorists supporters but perhaps you do
You also don't have time to come up with a suitable comeback.
Seriously, better writers or GTFO.
It's not Israel's traditions that are relevant, it's the international community's traditions.
Imagine that members of a social club have an unwritten rule that if there's crappy beer in the fridge, any member can drink it. They also have some more formal written rules that discuss what happens with fine scotch (e.g. the person who brings it always gets the last drink, etc.). Now imagine that a new person joins the club, years after all these unwritten and written rules come into force. If that new person wants to drink fine scotch, he has to abide by the written rules, even though they were drafted before he got there. However, if he wants to grab a PBR, he's free to do so regardless of whether he ever drinks scotch. The fact that he was not there for the formation of the tradition or that he does not participate in the written scotch agreement has no bearing on whether or not he can participate in the custom of drinking crappy beer.
Almost everything derives from customary international law in one way or another. Treaties are simply codifications of particular areas within a field.
No. If the treaty is universally accepted as the exclusive law for a particular field, then it is the customary international law in that field. In that case, whether or not Israel was a signatory would be irrelevant, as it would still be bound by those principles. If the treaty is not universally accepted as the exclusive law for a particular field, then nonsignatories are only bound by the customary international law that the treaty sought to replace.
I don't think that Israel is claiming that every nation must agree that their actions are legal under all laws, I believe they're simply arguing that their actions are appropriate under customary international law. The fact that some countries may have signed onto another treaty doesn't necessarily change that.
What suitable comback? You are arguing for terrorist sympathizers who ran a blockade.
Its pathetic watching you trying to justify it.
Okay. I guess what it comes down to is my Constitutional pedantry won't necessarily get me much further than the door of the proverbial social club, if in fact most of the rules aren't written.
For some reason I was under the impression that they were.
I guess that's what I get for spending too much time thinking about the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution. :lol:
Okay. I guess what it comes down to is my Constitutional pedantry won't necessarily get me much further than the door of the proverbial social club, if in fact most of the rules aren't written.
For some reason I was under the impression that they were.
I guess that's what I get for spending too much time thinking about the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution. :lol:
You just lost the debate. You can always point out the vanquished because it's the first one to stop debating point for point and instead tries to run a synoposis of his overall position. A sad but predictable outcome.
If you directed more than a single brain cell towards the reading of my posts, you'd know that wasn't true.
No, what's pathetic is the half-assed way you justify your half-assed replies. :lol:
If you're done talking to yourself, I'd be interested to know if you, you know, have anything to say.
Hold on, wait just a damn minute.
If it isn't written, how the hell is it international law?
Is it generally accepted custom to refer to unwritten and therefore highly debatable rules as "law?"
I've already said it. Let me know what areas of my statements you are having problems with and I'll break out the crayons and draw some pretty pictures for you.
The sum total of your contributions to this thread have been:
1) A 9/11 reference
2) Name-calling
3) Throwing red herrings around
You haven't actually said anything, and when I admitted (as I often do when I end up disagreeing with RightInNYC on something)maybe I'f got more to learn on the subject, you pointed to that as if it were some great victory of yours.
It wasn't. RightInNYC schools me from time to time, and as much as I hate being wrong, I learn a lot from him.
That doesn't give you grounds to make fun me, or anybody else for that matter.
Amazing that that is the sum total of your contribution to this 43-page thread.
No, wait, never mind. It's not amazing at all.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now, do you have an actual contribution to make to this thread, or are you going to stick to the superficial trolling tactics you're so well-known for?
A reference to their reaction. You know, the people you are defending?
Pot meet Kettle
Ah yes the classic sign of defeat. Relable an entire position based on something you found in debating for dummies. It doesn't get into any specifics but it sure sounds good.
And you ignored my position on defending a ship that refused to comply with Israeli requests. Nice selective reasoning. No surprise though.
Before you climb up too high on your cross remember you were the one who began the insults.
So please spare me your self righteous BS. You attacked first and now you're complaining? Pretty pathetic not to mention childish.
All I'm trying to say is that Israel has no tradition of custom to call upon that pre-date these treaties. They can't say "we've been doing this for hundreds of years, suck it."
How much of what is recognized by most of the world these days as international law defined strictly by custom, and not by treaties?
If most of the rest of the world defines the law of the sea via a particular treaty, and Israel is not a signatory nation, isn't it fair to say that Israel can't use the law of the sea to justify what they're doing?
If there is significant disagreement over what the law of the sea actually is -- custom versus treaty -- then that serves to further prove my point, that Israel can't claim some sort of universal standard to justify what they did.
Moderator's Warning: |
According to international law, a non-signatory to a general treaty can be regarded as having accepted provisions of the treaty even without signature and ratification by adhering to said treaty as a norm of international law in its interactions with other states.
However, if such a general treaty is NOT accepted from the beginning and this is NOT accepted by the non-signatory state as a norm of international law, then it is not bound by it. This is the standard practice in modern itnernational law. You can find it in any introductory textbook to the subject...
According to international law, a non-signatory to a general treaty can be regarded as having accepted provisions of the treaty even without signature and ratification by adhering to said treaty as a norm of international law in its interactions with other states.
You can find it in any introductory textbook to the subject...
Okay. I guess what it comes down to is my Constitutional pedantry won't necessarily get me much further than the door of the proverbial social club, if in fact most of the rules aren't written.
For some reason I was under the impression that they were.
I guess that's what I get for spending too much time thinking about the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution. :lol:
Hold on, wait just a damn minute.
If it isn't written, how the hell is it international law?
Is it generally accepted custom to refer to unwritten and therefore highly debatable rules as "law?"
What is customary international law?
"It consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way." (Rosenne, Practice and Methods of International Law, p. 55)
The elements of customary international law include:
1. Widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time (State practice).
2. Acts must occur out of sense of obligation (opinio juris).
3. Acts must be taken by a significant number of States and not be rejected by a significant number of States.
"Customary international law develops from the practice of States. To international lawyers, the practice of states' means official governmental conduct reflected in a variety of acts, including official statements at international conferences and in diplomatic exchanges, formal instructions to diplomatic agents, national court decisions, legislative measures or other actions taken by governments to deal with matters of international concern."
I guess this is why I don't have a head for this particular area of law. In my mind, either you've agreed to be bound by it or you haven't. It sounds like there's a shadowy third position, where you can act like you agree with it, until it's not convenient -- at which time you mention that you never signed on the dotted line.
I guess this is why I don't have a head for this particular area of law. In my mind, either you've agreed to be bound by it or you haven't. It sounds like there's a shadowy third position, where you can act like you agree with it, until it's not convenient -- at which time you mention that you never signed on the dotted line.
That's great, but the vagaries of international law aren't part of the main curriculum around here, so I'm kinda figuring this one out as I go.
As such, since I seem to be wrong on the point I was arguing here, I was trying to milk RightInNYC a little so I don't make the same mistake elsewhere.
Naturally with the UN looking into this incident, they can hardly be called Neutral, thus whatever conclusion they arrive at will be clouded by their own beliefs which seem to favor any Nation excepting Israel.
I think you put a lot of people on the most partisan pro-Israeli side by stating this, to me it's pretty obvious Israel has little chance of an impartial investigation done by the UN. That doesn't mean no investigation is necessary, that just means I prefer an objective party.If the UN cannot be regarded as impartial, then who can? If, and I don't think this would be accepted by anyone other than the most partisan pro-Israeli, the UN is not the impartial body to adjudicate and investigate the incident, who would you suggest should do so? Perhaps you believe that no investigation of the raids and the deaths is necessary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?