Sorry, but that is inaccurate. International law exists as national law of those nations who have ratified the respective treaties. Ideally, that should leave the national courts in a position to try violations, but there are of course plenty of cases where they are prevented from doing so, or simply chicken out. Nevertheless, practically all bodies of international law include provisions for arbitration by neutral parties, be that the other signatories, a neutral agency appointed by them, the International Court of Justice, or the ICC. While some of these arbitrators lack enforcement power, that doesn’t change the fact that they are capable of delivering an official position on whether a party is compliant or not. Note, for example, that the US has been brought to the ICJ repeatedly on violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations for failure to notify foreign citizens of their right to contact diplomatic staff of their country when being tried in the US, and failure to notify the staff itself. Obviously, local law enforcement couldn’t care less about the fact that they are violating international (and through that national) law. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fact that they did so.
Of course the situation is different because of the language/regional development issue. I just meant that we should be careful not to let all the plum jobs go to Western-owned and -operated firms. Given the circumstances, I don’t see how a reasonable person could have a problem with some proportion of foreign outsourcing. The FSU was quite the wacky case; it was very much the Wild East, and there was a window of opportunity when any Westerner who spoke halfway decent Russian could basically step off the plane, walk into one of the expat bars in Moscow, and come out with a decent job offer, or a really great one if he/she actually had some practical business experience and was willing to risk working undert he table for a while.
A friend of mine with whom I studied in Russia in 1989 ended up having a decently substantial role in drafting the Kyrgyz privatization plan for Price Waterhouse, and she was fresh out of her master’s (not even an MBA; it was in International Studies)and had no other applicable experience. She was earnng a quite decent Western-level salary in a country where pensioners were starving, unemployment was sky-high, and those who were working were lucky to get paid even their minimal wages at all. That sort of disparity didn’t go unnoticed by the locals, and created a good bit of resentment. And keep in mind that the other key difference was that we didn’t bomb the crap out of the Soviets first.
They might very well prefer that we had. Nonetheless, your point is well taken.
Coll
As much as I appreciate the avuncular pat on the head, I demur. As I have strenuously sought to point out, I have no opinion as to the validity of “odious debt” as a principle of international law. Zero, zip, nada. If forced to it, I would put it on the same level as “preemptive war”: a convenient veil to drape over a dishonorable action, should a thinly contrived legitimacy seem desireable. That said, should such prove useful to the Wolfowitz Cabal, I have little doubt they would say it with a straight face and as much dignity as can be mustered for an international mugging. These are people not deterred by embarrassment.
“Stumbled over”? (Grumble, grouse, bitch…)
You are quite mistaken and John Mace is correct. International law exists before and independently of any treaties and is based primarily on precedent, custom and usage as well as equity. The case we are discussing is an example. When two countries have a dispute which is not covered by any treaties the answer is to be found in the general principles of international law. Specific treaties as well as UN resolutions etc complement and modify international law in the same way that statutory law complements and modifies common law.
Is that so? Interesting. So then you consider it a principle of what?
And what has “international law” to say as to “preemptive war”? In my Pollyannish naivete, I had always rather thought that invasion of a sovereign nation, especially in an effort to slay a chimera, would be beyond the pale. If “international law” refers to little more than politesse and seating arrangements, it hardly qualifies for a title so grand as “law”. Perhaps “guidelines”.
However, many countries have constitutions which specifically accept the juisdiction of international treaties to which they are signatory on a par with, or even above, their own national laws. The U.S. and Russia are two examples. The applicable Russian constitutional article states that in a situation where there is a conflict between Russian law and a treay to which Russia is signatory, the treaty applies. I’d provide cites for you, but my sources are currently sitting in a stack of packed boxes behind me. (I believe I’ve cited both U.S. and Russian examples in other threads.)
Don’t know. Don’t care! How many times I got to say that? Its not worth flogging inoffensive electrons. Its not really worth your time either, save that it offers an opportunity for ankle-biting.
Look, do me a favor. Do your victory dance, mount a plaque in your den, and leave me alone, ok? If you are moved to add me to your “ignore” list I should be most grateful. I only regret that a poster I had previously found intelligent and civil should lower himself so. But its your rubber ducky. Do what thou wilt.
Lest I forget: sheeesh!
As reluctant as I am to admit ignorance, this is a stunner. Not to suggest that I doubt one who’s probity and charm is legend, but have you a cite? As regards the US, I mean.
I posted a cite in a thread a month or two ago, but I can’t remember where. Since my IE search bar has gone AWOL, and I am in the process of moving and have no bloody clue where my copy of the Constitution is, if you search on my username in GD for “Constitution” you should be able to find it relatively easily. It’s one of the first few articles in the Consitution. I used to have it memorized, but the 8th grade Constitution exam was a long time ago.
(Unlike the Russian Constitution, which actually states that treaties have first jurisdiction, the U.S. Constitution says something more like “the Constitution and international treaties are the supreme law of the land.”)
Eva Luna, there must be a misunderstanding because you start your reply with “however” and yet I fail to see any contradiction between what you say and what I said so I have a feeling I am missing something.
**sailor, ** I didn’t mean to state that there was a contradiction. I was just expanding on what you said in a way which I thought might provide further clarification and food for thought in re: the OP and other points raised thereafter.
Well the US Constitution says:
So international Treaties are above State constitutions or laws. I believe EU countries do the same thing and EU laws are above national laws.
Here’s a small example of what I’m talking about, excerpted from my master’s thesis (which was on the applicability of Russian law to bilingual education policy, as applied to ethnic minorities in the North Caucasus, but I’ll try not to bore you with the pedantic details)…at least I can find the stuff on my hard drive!
"In addition to Russia’s obligations under international law, the Constitution of the Russian Federation contains several provisions which protect educational rights of the entire population, as well as other specific rights of ethnic minorities. The most important of these provisions for the purpose of guaranteeing the cultural and political rights of minorities, given the current undeveloped state of Russian domestic legislation in this area, may be the guarantees contained in Articles 15 and 17 of the supremacy of international law and international agreements over the Russian Constitution, and in turn, of the Constitution over other Russian domestic laws. Regarding the relationship of international to Russian domestic law, Article 15, Section 4 of the Constitution states that “the commonly recognized principles and norms of international law and the international treaties of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system,” and that “if an international treaty of the Russian Federation stipulates other rules than those stipulated by [Russian] law, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.” Although this provision might not seem to incorporate principles of international law directly into the Russian legal system with the high level of authority of the Constitution, Article 17, Section 1 later states that “basic rights and liberties in conformity with the commonly recognized principles and norms of international law shall be recognized and guaranteed in the Russian Federation and under this Constitution.”
Does this make any sense or clarify anything?
Article VI: 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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Is that it? (emphasis reverently added)
Wow, simulpost by sailor and elucidator! Does that mean you two will kiss and make up?
He must first trudge to the river, to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a Chorus of Bitter Virgins, intoning Dirges of Woe and Humiliation.
Or we could each kiss you, and call it even.
Well, forgive me for asking you to clarify what you said and have maintained and not retracted and which I (and pretty much everybody else) believe to be mistaken.
I have no interest in your ankles or any other parts but as long as I believe you are maintaining something which is mistaken I am entitled to contradict it. The problem is that we have gotten to a point with so much weaseling that no one knows what you are really saying. You have not retracted your original statement but you just say it does not mean what I think it means and you refuse to explain what it does mean. You are the one who keeps saying it is not worth the time, why don’t you drop it and let me decide what to do with my time? You can make end the matter by not mentioning it again as i will have nothing to respond to but as long as you keep maintaing that “there is a recognized principal, international-wise, which permits a new regime to repudiate the debts of a previous regime” I am entitled to disagree.
>> Look, do me a favor. Do your victory dance, mount a plaque in your den, and leave me alone, ok?
I have no interest in you but as long as you maintain something which is erroneous you can expect to be corrected by me or anyone else.
>> If you are moved to add me to your “ignore” list I should be most grateful.
You will not be so lucky.
>> I only regret that a poster I had previously found intelligent and civil should lower himself so.
I have been quite civil and not insulted you. You are the one who has repeatedly insulted me and been warned for it.
>> sheeesh!
You can sheesh all you want but that dos not change the facts of the argument.
There is no argument, sailor! None! It does not exist!
Does the principle (or premise or supposition or fallacy) called “odious debt” exist? Well, of course it does, Google on the term and read your eyeballs out! Is it “international-wise”? A less than apt phrasing, I grant, but so what? As it necessarily involves more than one nation, by definition…
Now comes the tricky part. Pay close attention. All you have to do is show any quote, any statement on my part that I hold that principle to be valid.
I do suggest that if it serves the interest of certain odious political personages, I have little doubt that it would be trotted out and publicly displayed. As my contempt for those persons is obvious to the meanest intelligence, I hardly see how that qualifies as approval on my part.
At least you have dropped the groundless slur about “making shit up”, which is a stumble in the right direction. I put it to you, sir, that your inept attempt to make this “my” principle is equally groundless. If you can point out where I stated my personal attachment or approval, do so. Failing that, kindly fut the shuck up!
Yours truly,
Betty Noyer