[extropy-chat] Does international law exist andisitintheinterests of US citizens?
brian_a_lee at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 16 19:01:31 UTC 2004
>From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
>To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Does international law exist
>andisitintheinterests of US citizens?
>Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:28:53 +1000
>Even in the US, the decision to invade vests in one person. The
>commander in chief. The president. George W Bush is the person
>responsible for the US invasion of Iraq. It was his personal call.
I think US law allows the president 60-90 days to deploy troops without
congressional approval, but it wasn't used in this case. I think both the
Senate and House authorized troops in Iraq, so saying that it was a
"personal" call by Bush is simplistic at the least. He wasn't acting as a
rouge president and abusing his powers.
The UN charter does not make resolutions binding, so all 15 members could
vote and pass a resolution to invade or whatever and unless members then
execute it, it is meaningless. Thus the problem with the UN.
If you want real, international law (aside from trade agreements which are
the only functioning international laws) then form a new authoratative
power. Personally, I'm just waiting for the EU to expand all over the world.
I don't think any former president was willing to accede US sovereignty to
the UN nor will any near-term future president. Kerry is against the ICC as
far as I know.
For international law to grow, it needs to expand from WTO-like orgs where
members must pass local legislation to enforce the princples of the
treaties. As scary as it is, the recent DMCAish legislation in Australia is
an example of functioning international law. So now the US and Australia
have similar copyright laws that can be enforced and prosecuted in both
More information about the extropy-chat