I'm trying to learn more about the Gaza situation. I thought that settlements were a violation of international law? Any help would be appreciated.
trying to learn wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/01/world/meast/mideast-israel-west-bank/index.html?hpt=hp_t1I'm trying to learn more about the Gaza situation. I thought that settlements were a violation of international law? Any help would be appreciated.
Yes please and let'e keep it on topic.
Nobody to stop them. Same reason that Russia can take over parts of Ukraine.
Fyi. The west bank and Gaza are two different places. Your question is equally valid however.
lunarjukro wrote:
Fyi. The west bank and Gaza are two different places. Your question is equally valid however.
Sorry about that. I see that now.
"allowed" ?!?
WTF?
hmmm...since Gaza is part of Israel, I'm not sure I understand the question. When Israel turned over Gaza to the PLO, were you bitching about whether they were 'allowed' to do so?
Every time Arabs attack Israel, they get invaded and have more land taken from them. The Arabs are too stupid to realize this tactical mistake and the Israelis are too greedy to care.
Roy D. Mercer wrote:
hmmm...since Gaza is part of Israel, I'm not sure I understand the question. When Israel turned over Gaza to the PLO, were you bitching about whether they were 'allowed' to do so?
JFC. You're kidding right? Yes, you are.
Anyway, read up - this entry should answer all your questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#Fourth_Geneva_ConventionIn a nutshell, the world generally considers the settlements illegal. Israel has an alternate reading of the geneva convention which say the settlements are legal.
In the real world, israel takes bites out of the west bank as punishment to try to discourage attacks from the palestinians.
And israel won't stop unless the US says stop and puts teeth in it somehow.
By definition there is no such thing as "international law." Laws are rules imposed by governments, and there is no international government. There are also no rules as to what you are "allowed" to do in war; the outcome of the war determines who gets to establish the rules in a given region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_lawhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rules+of+WarEdhjhhhgsgucgbh wrote:
By definition there is no such thing as "international law." Laws are rules imposed by governments, and there is no international government. There are also no rules as to what you are "allowed" to do in war; the outcome of the war determines who gets to establish the rules in a given region.
The US is only temporarily stealing land in the West Bank.
Hats to be shed again wrote:
Edhjhhhgsgucgbh wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_lawhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rules+of+WarBy definition there is no such thing as "international law." Laws are rules imposed by governments, and there is no international government. There are also no rules as to what you are "allowed" to do in war; the outcome of the war determines who gets to establish the rules in a given region.
An old semantic debate.
An interesting thing about the academic field of international law is that people in the field are almost without exception dedicated to the "project" of international law. Their goal is not simply to describe international law as it exists, but to try to strengthen its norms and give it legitimacy. The argument that international law isn't really "law" is a perfectly educated and supportable position.
Unsurprisingly, when norms do develop, they tend to be a reflection of global power structures at the time. For example, the idea that nation states are equal came about after the European wars of religion when there were no dominant European superpowers. That idea was largely undermined after WWII. The UN Security Council, which can legally authorize military action, was just the victorious allies in WWII. When it really comes down to it, powerful countries have never really paid attention to international law when it was against their interest. The stuff that everyone agrees on, like how to treat ambassadors, isn't really against anyone's interest.
For what it's worth, all law, whether international or domestic, is really just a social convention, and only has power when the people with power feel pressured to respect it. The United States isn't any different, particularly in the area of separation of powers, where many of the leading legal opinions come out of the Office of Legal Counsel, which is institutionally on the side of the President. John Marshall understood this probably better than anyone, and his great project was to get people to take American constitutional law seriously. But he understood that there were limits to the power he could claim: "Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny[.]" Johnson's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 US 543, 588 (1823).
800 dude wrote:
An old semantic debate.
Agreed
800 dude wrote:
The argument that international law isn't really "law" is a perfectly educated and supportable position.
As is the argument that international law really IS "law".
800 dude wrote:
Unsurprisingly, when norms do develop, they tend to be a reflection of global power structures at the time. For example, the idea that nation states are equal came about after the European wars of religion when there were no dominant European superpowers. That idea was largely undermined after WWII. The UN Security Council, which can legally authorize military action, was just the victorious allies in WWII.
Agreed
800 dude wrote:
When it really comes down to it, powerful countries have never really paid attention to international law when it was against their interest. The stuff that everyone agrees on, like how to treat ambassadors, isn't really against anyone's interest.
Much like powerful individuals who have never really paid attention to national or state laws when it was against their interest. It is simply a difference in degree, not kind. Those who have sufficient power to ignore "the law" will often do so regardless of whether the law is national law or international law.
800 dude wrote:
An old semantic debate.
An interesting thing about the academic field of international law is that people in the field are almost without exception dedicated to the "project" of international law. Their goal is not simply to describe international law as it exists, but to try to strengthen its norms and give it legitimacy. The argument that international law isn't really "law" is a perfectly educated and supportable position.
Unsurprisingly, when norms do develop, they tend to be a reflection of global power structures at the time. For example, the idea that nation states are equal came about after the European wars of religion when there were no dominant European superpowers. That idea was largely undermined after WWII. The UN Security Council, which can legally authorize military action, was just the victorious allies in WWII. When it really comes down to it, powerful countries have never really paid attention to international law when it was against their interest. The stuff that everyone agrees on, like how to treat ambassadors, isn't really against anyone's interest.
Thanks for the support, but it's a conceptual issue, a matter of definitions and logic, not merely word choice. Humans reasoning terms of concepts and definitions, and if you want to have contradictions like the concept of a law imposed by a non-government entity, it means you want to be irrational.
If Obama doesn't steal all the land from the Arab Semites then he has to send the Eastern European Jews back to Europe, and that will result in Holocaust #3 in Europe.
800 dude wrote:
For what it's worth, all law, whether international or domestic, is really just a social convention, and only has power when the people with power feel pressured to respect it. The United States isn't any different, particularly in the area of separation of powers, where many of the leading legal opinions come out of the Office of Legal Counsel, which is institutionally on the side of the President. John Marshall understood this probably better than anyone, and his great project was to get people to take American constitutional law seriously. But he understood that there were limits to the power he could claim: "Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny[.]" Johnson's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 US 543, 588 (1823).
A law is not a "social convention." By definition it is a principle of conduct enforced by means of physical violence by the entity who in a position to carry out violence—the government of a region—against those who violate that principle. The government of the US enforces its laws by throwing people who violate them in jail, or killing them if they resist. The UN is not in a position to imprison or kill anyone, so it isn't a government, and nobody, let alone it's most powerful member, is bound by its edicts. The day it is in a position to enforce its decisions violently, it will have become the world government, all of its members will then be part of the same nation, and its laws will just be "laws," not "international" ones.
Edhjhhhgsgucgbh wrote:
Thanks for the support, but it's a conceptual issue, a matter of definitions and logic, not merely word choice. Humans reasoning terms of concepts and definitions, and if you want to have contradictions like the concept of a law imposed by a non-government entity, it means you want to be irrational.
This is sheer lunacy, launched from a platform of insufficient (or insufficiently clear) thinking.
There are many laws at many levels. Some of them are defined by and enforced by national governments. Others are defined by other organizations and enforced likewise. Some are written. Others merely understood (or not).
A simple example is the law as laid down by a gang leader (or mob boss if you prefer). It IS the law within the organization. Breaking it has consequences. Sometimes it is broken nonetheless.
The same is true of state law.
The same is true of national law.
The same is true of international law.
.
.
.
So, my little friend, I am sorry that you have gotten your panties all bunched up with your one and only definition of "law". Unfortunately (for you) you do not own the English language. And your "law" is not the law.