Talk:International law

The information has been very useful for me indeed. Thank you very much.

Weak on international criminal law. Expand. Mention ICC, Nuremburg, &c., &c.? --Daniel C. Boyer

---

Someone's uploaded a lot of historical information at International Law -- needs integrating in here and other relevant places. -- Sam

(Jerzy(t) notes: edits of 09:36, 2002 Nov 6 . . Tzartzam)

---

---

From Talk:International Law (Jerzy(t) notes: the two following two 'graphs came to this page in edit of 22:21, 2003 Sep 17 . . Ap (merging with Talk:International law) ):

This needs to be integrated into international law, and perhaps other places. Also, where's it from? -- Sam

I AM THE ONE WHO WROTE THIS MATERIAL. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE RETURNED TO THIS SITE IN OVER A YEAR. THE MATERIAL IS MY OWN, BUT BASED ON LECTURES. IF IT IS THE STYLE THAT IS UNWANTED, THEN DELETE THEM, BUT IF IT IS ONLY FEAR OVER INFRINGEMENTE, THEN DO NOT WORRY, KEEP THEM. User:12.223.87.232

---

per history of Talk:International Law (now a redirect),

the first of the two 'graphs above is from the edit there of 09:37, 2002 Nov 6 . . Tzartzam and

the second is from the edit there whose history entry is "13:20, 2003 Sep 12 . . MyRedDice (from VfD/copyvio)"

--Jerzy(t) 17:19, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

---

---

I only scanned, but i know at least that the string "forbear..." is missing from the article; IIRC, an important aspect of IL is that its force over states does not arise from sovereignty over them (as sovereignty rests only in the various states) but in large part from the precedents implicitly set by the practices and "forbearances" of states. This may be important to bring in.

(Logically -- which may of course be irrelevant -- this extends even to treaty obligations: who gets to says that treaties are binding, rather than being merely rhetorical devices that sovereigns and sovereign states use to reassure 3rd parties about the immediate future? They can do that; they are sovereign, after all! Oops, is that original research?) --Jerzy(t) 17:19, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, but the article is a) poorly structured, in that it leaps from the general (basis for international law) to the specific (grievances brought to the General Assembly, which has no authority to deal with international law); commingling great specificity in history with generalities elsewhere; etc. Somebody needs to rewrite the article to show the background for, structure of, practical workings of, and issues related to international law. --Leifern 02:56, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I reverted your edits as they are not correct. You confuse "non-binding" with "irrelevant" with regards to GA resolutions, highly relevant to this specific issue is the "Uniting for Peace"-resolutions. While the legal value of GA resolutions might be contested, saying they are irrelevant is wrong, especially when there are no consensus on such a matter. Im not sure if this link will work for you, but it is from an article commenting the Uniting for Peace resolution [1] (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28195101%2945%3A1%3C129%3AT%22FPRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1)

That argument illustrates perfectly my point: GA resolutions are absolutely irrelevant legally; the are highly relevant politically, but that is precisely the thing - the need to differentiate between politics and law - something you obviously are incapable of doing. --Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

As for Chapter VI resolutions, this is also a contentious issue. I did check this up; it is not an established fact that only Chapter VII resolutions are binding.

Well, all you have to do is read the UN Charter. It's not that hard and not the least bit contentious. --Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Your edits on the ICJ and advisory opinions are also wrong; its right to give advisory opinions is not controversial; arguments against specific cases should be kept outside this article. --Cybbe 19:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

The relevant statute gives the court the right to issue an advisory opinion on any matter referred to it by a party that is authorized to do so. But the court itself has refused to hear cases under certain circumstances; and it's by no means clear what the purpose of such opinions should be, unless it is to provide guidance for decisions reached by the referring party. I'm assuming that you're referring to the referral by the GA to the ICJ on "legal consequences of contstruction of the wall [sic] in the occupied [sic] Palestinian [sic] territories," though I didn't. The EU, US, and other states issued briefs to the court questioning its jurisdiction. If that doesn't question the premise of "any legal question," I don't know what does. --Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Leifern's edits are all correct. I'm restoring his version. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All his edits are original research without a single reference given. He clearly has no idea what international law is about when he claims that GA resolutions are _irrelevant_. That is his opinion, not what international law is.. They are not binding, thats another issue. Im reverting back, and will continue to do so untill any proof of his claims are given (none so far). I could agree to a rephrasing where SC decisions outside of Chapter VII are also included as binding. On the ICJ issue, you are using _one_ case to question the entire basis for the Courts right to take on advisory opinions, but generalising out of one example is wrong. Read some ICJ-cases, the parties nearly always contend that the Court doesnt have jurisdiction for different reasons. Of course I knew which case you had in mind, but thats irrelevant, you're still using arguments against one single case to question the entire basis of advisory opinions. Article 65(1) is quite clear on this issue. Here are a few sources on GA resolutions and SC resolutions outside of Chapter VII.

"Second, in relation to the rules of international law which govern the conduct of Member States outside the United Nations, it has been pointed out that decisions of the General Assembly which settle legal disputes have legal significance independent of any formal lawmaking power given by the Charter." (The Legal Significance of Re-Citation of General Assembly Resolutions, Samuel A. Bleicher The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 63, No. 3. (Jul., 1969), pp. 444-478.)

On decisions outside chapter VII:

" Although I maintain that the Council can make binding decisions outside Chapter VII, this essay does not enter the debate over the precise legal effect of various Security Council actions.3 " (Image and Reality in the UN’s Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, Steven R. Ratner)

" UN practice has shown that the Security Council can adopt binding decisions outside Chapter VII, and which are not Chapter VI (non/binding) resolutions. " (Vera Gowlland-Debbas Professor of Public International Law) --Cybbe 11:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cybbe, aside from the ad hominem attacks, I have to thank you for doing the research for me. The quotes you mention make a disputable argument - for example, Gowlland-Debbas's quote pretty much confirms what I said, though you don't include what non-Chapter VI and VII basis they have for establishing international law. Ratner (in this article) begs off on the issue. If you had used this in a paper written for a college class, you would have flunked.

You will not that my wording in this article about the ICJ does not examine what the various grounds are for disputing the validity of ICJ advisory opinions; merely that it's "controversial." In fact, the ICJ bases its entire existence on voluntary, binding arbitration; it is not the "judicial" arm of the UN, as some moron has written somewhere (the UN is not a government and doesn't have checks, balances, etc.)

The most egregious misunderstanding about international law is that it can a) be determined by professors, scholars, etc., and b) that it somehow supersedes national sovereignty. The UN charter and every other treaty, etc., starts with the premise that national sovereignty trumps anything else, and the law of treaties that you think is the magna carta of international law starts with the basis that all treaties are entered into voluntarily.

We can either keep reverting edits or try to improve upon what is written. Every time you revert to the parisology that preceded my edits, I will simply revert back. Feel free to make the statements more precise, but the previous version simply obfuscated the matter of international law, which I think is your purpose. --Leifern 12:28, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

As you should have seen, i contested the Chapter VI passage on the grounds that not only Chapter VII resolutions are binding, this is in conformity with my sources, I stated this explictly earlier. I did a few changes, and before you revert them, examine them and try to find a compromise. I wont accept a sgolution where GA resolutions are "irrelevant", they are not binding which i have made clear in this version, but claiming they are irrelevant is wrong. I have also never stated that professors "create" international law, but legal scholars are the best sources we have for _interpretation_ of treaties and soruces of international law. On advisory opinions, I've changed it so it doenst create confusion about the right of the Court to give these opinions. My purpose is not to obfuscate, but where there are different interpretation, I dont think we should choose one of them and discard the other(s). International law is not that clear cut, and your view on it is not the only one existing. --Cybbe 13:16, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that, as seems to be your practice, when pushed you grudgingly admit International law is not as clear-cut as you initially pretend it to be. Why not start from that premise in the future? Oh, and here's an idea Cybbe; why not use the Talk: page to propose new wordings, rather than arguing the case? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 28 Mar ,2005 (UTC)

Why don't you argue against the arguments put forward, and why dont you use the same norms on Leiferns edits? If you'd like everything to be bashed out in talk, you should've reverted back to the first version, not Leiferns. I've given sources for my edits, that's a lot more than you or Leifern have. If there is anyone here with Originial Research, there has to be the two of you, as you fail to bring any sources whenever asked for. All my edits are based on sources given here, all your edits are based on nothing but you own thoughts (or so it seems). So please, use argument and show where they're from, and use to same norm of labeling something original research on arguments you happen to like. The double standard is obvious. On the GA resolutions, Ive made clear that the legal significance is unclear, although saying its irrelevant is going too far. On SC decisions outside chapter VII I've given sources for this. And its funny to see you find a direct cite of the ICJ-statutes original research. Where are your sources Jayjg? --Cybbe 16:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

General Cleanup

I am interested in cleaning up this article signficantly.

Particularly on issues that are relatively uncontroversial such as the Sources of International Law - specifically jus cogens, treaties, customary law, state practice, etc... and propose to detail the signficance of each in detailed fashion under bullets.

This would probably involve the deletion of the existing structure and I was wondering if that is acceptable under existing Wikipedia norms?

What is often done in these cases if you believe the changes might be seen as controversial, or if they will leave the page in a messed up state for some while, is to create a subpage of the article (e.g. International law/New version), do the work there, get input and agreement on putting it in place of this article, and then make the move. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

O.K., I see you started editing in the middle of the existing article. Wikipedia is, ideally, an encyclopedia, so it's probably best not to have work-in-progress drafts in the middle of articles. I've moved everything to International law/New version, where you can work on it until it's in encyclopedic form. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)