Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#51

Post by utilize1808 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #49
utilize1808 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that in the national case, justice is expected; whereas in the international case, it must be understood that there is not supposed to be a "enforcement mechanism" that delivers justice.

In both case there are enforcement mechanism that deliver the will of the enforcers collectively which sometimes correlates with justice or at least a reasonable reading of the letter of the law; in both cases there are a wide set of failure modes from the perspective of law and even moreso justice, because law enforcement (and, in the case of concern for justice, also law making) rely on institutions ultimately comp…

Sure, you can argue that "justice is expected" doesn't align with how the real world actually operates, but in the modern interpretation, national law enforcers are supposed to be subject to the same law they are enforcing (whether that is actually the case is another issue); they may break the law some times, but being a law enforcer does not exempt them from the obligation of obeying the law. In other words, law and its enforcement apply universally.

In the international case, it is understood that the "law enforcers" are not obliged to play by the same rule. The "enforcement" therefore only applies selectively. Then the law cannot really be said to have been being enforced, because they don't apply to the "enforcer".

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#52

Post by _DeadFred_ »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #16

It’s a little disturbing seeing the complete lack of historical understanding in the comments here. Yeah, international law isn’t perfect and certainly wasn’t perfectly followed. But the U.S., and most other countries, did heavily constrain themselves by it, primarily for their own good. Some of this is clearly evident from the fact that many of the actions the U.S. has taken, such as kidnapping Maduro, doesn’t reall…

The Constitution of the United States of America enshrines that international law IS United States law.

And in the Treaty of the Danish West Indies the US will "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-3...

This is an end to the United States Executive branch considering the Constitution binding.

Article 6 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#53

Post by _DeadFred_ »

graemep wrote: post #3

This has always been the case, and not just the US either. International law has no enforcement mechanism - it depends on willingness of countries to follow it or force others to. It does not have a proper system of courts to decide the law. Different bits of it can clash with each other. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...

For the United States of America, we ENSHINRED it into our Constitution in Article 6 to give it an enforcement mechanism in our country. Our court system is international law's court system as far as US related issues/enforcement.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/ "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#54

Post by _DeadFred_ »

utilize1808 wrote: post #25
dragonwriter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> International law has no enforcement mechanism International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. > it depends on willingness of countries to follow it or force others to. All law depends on the willingness of its subjects to follow it, and failing that of its other subjects to force them to. This is not unique to international law. Some systems of law (e.g., typical modern national criminal law) may have a…

> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms. That's rather naïve. How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined? US, for quite some time, is the international law.

Article 6 of the United States Constitution says international law is United States law. US courts are the enforcement mechanism as far as the United States Constitution is concerned.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/

In the Treaty of the Danish West Indies the US will "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-3...

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#55

Post by goldforever »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #16

It’s a little disturbing seeing the complete lack of historical understanding in the comments here. Yeah, international law isn’t perfect and certainly wasn’t perfectly followed. But the U.S., and most other countries, did heavily constrain themselves by it, primarily for their own good. Some of this is clearly evident from the fact that many of the actions the U.S. has taken, such as kidnapping Maduro, doesn’t reall…

[dead]

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#56

Post by goldforever »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #52
hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #16

It’s a little disturbing seeing the complete lack of historical understanding in the comments here. Yeah, international law isn’t perfect and certainly wasn’t perfectly followed. But the U.S., and most other countries, did heavily constrain themselves by it, primarily for their own good. Some of this is clearly evident from the fact that many of the actions the U.S. has taken, such as kidnapping Maduro, doesn’t reall…

The Constitution of the United States of America enshrines that international law IS United States law. And in the Treaty of the Danish West Indies the US will "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-3... This is an end to the United States Executive branch considering the Constitution b…

[dead]

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#57

Post by watwut »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #15
watwut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nazi says that, yes. That was the cornerstone of that ideology and good people hope they will be defeated again.

Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology. Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity.

Communists did not had that as a cornerstone ideology the way nazi had. For nazi this was one of the core beliefs.

Exactly as it is for Trump.

Communists seen themselves in ideological fight and communist leadership was also about giving power to "politically motivated entity".

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#58

Post by dragonwriter »

utilize1808 wrote: post #51
dragonwriter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both case there are enforcement mechanism that deliver the will of the enforcers collectively which sometimes correlates with justice or at least a reasonable reading of the letter of the law; in both cases there are a wide set of failure modes from the perspective of law and even moreso justice, because law enforcement (and, in the case of concern for justice, also law making) rely on institutions ultimately comp…

Sure, you can argue that "justice is expected" doesn't align with how the real world actually operates, but in the modern interpretation, national law enforcers are supposed to be subject to the same law they are enforcing (whether that is actually the case is another issue); they may break the law some times, but being a law enforcer does not exempt them from the obligation of obeying the law. In other words, law an…

> but in the modern interpretation, national law enforcers are supposed to be subject to the same law they are enforcing

That is true in the same sense for national law as it is for international law (that is, true in idealized theory, much less true in practice. Actually, its somewhat less true in many national law systems than of international law at the intermediate level between pure theory and practice of the concrete, on-the-books law, where law enforcers, especially at the apex, often enjoy on-the-books immunities from some or all of the law that they enforce.)

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#59

Post by tsoukase »

The US government has gone in an unprecedented change of behaviour. Not respecting international organisations is one and evidently shown. I will not be surprised if they totally leave the UN in a craze of isolationism. "We have a $1t /y army, we do what we want" is their stance.

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#60

Post by SanjayMehta »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #47
SanjayMehta wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules based order, as endlessly parroted out by mostly European and USAian talking heads, is meaningless. There's international law, in the form of treaties, as ratified by groups of countries.

> The rules based order, as endlessly parroted out by mostly European and USAian talking heads, is meaningless. It was never meaningless. It was rather like the rights enumerated in the US bill of rights back before the Civil War. Aspirational, rarely enforced but something that (some) people some of the time tried to live up to.

I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. Maybe it was valid rhetoric then, but since 2011 or so it's been linked in many countries with arbitrary policies made up in part by NGOs and think tanks.

One Indian economist has pointed out the circular nature of these "rules" - a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules, IMF et al adopt it and then use that to decline or foreclose on poorer country loans. International law and ratified treaties never come into the picture which is why this term "rules based order" is used: "we make the rules and will order you around."

(One of the reasons why the Chinese BRI is so successful is because the Chinese are much more clear in the transaction: resources for infrastructure. No silly ESG and climate rules.)

Post reply on HN