Talk:Public international law/Archive 01

Old discussion

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]

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)

Ah. I see what's going on now. International law/New version redirects to Sources of international law. There may be better ways to do a re-write. I'm going to nominate this article at WP:1.0 and try to enlist some help and try to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject International law or something. CQ 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Just a note to say that I moved this page (from International law to Public international law) to avoid confusion with Private international law. I realise that it has created quite a few 'double redirects' however I intend to fix these tonight using AWB. Cynical 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the hyperlink on "law of nations", which brings one to a Law of Nation page which just redirects back to this article. This is pointless because "law of nations" is another name for this article, therefore it is unnecessary. Lucky 23 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Branches of international law

What are the sources of the "Branches of international law" section? I added Laws of war to the "See also" section. I had a look at WikiProject International law but I don't see much recent activity (since May). Is anyone watching this article? What has been decided about the moves mentioned above? My focus is on the International community article, which depends heavily on this one. • CQ 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) • WP:CBTF

Why can't the guy who wrote this start off simple. All you have to say that THERE ARE FOUR TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRADE AND COMMERCE, TREATY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND CRIMINAL). IS IT THAT HARD?

The comment immediately above is misconceived. How can "TREATY" be a seperate branch or type of international law when the other three branches/types all have treaty law as one of their main sources? Equally there is also a lot of overlap between criminal and human rights in the form of international humanitarian law.--Lucifer(sc) 11:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Westphalian sovereignty and Contingent sovereignty needs attention

• These articles were apparently created as part of a cover history for User:Liliana Dioguardi, who has been suspected to be in the employ of a Kremlin propaganda effort - specifically in her creation and maintenance of the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty article in support of the public legitimacy of that organization. The prominent international news and business magazine The Economist magazine has reported that this organization is likely a front for a Kremlin-sponsored disinformation effort, and has specifically identified the ICDISS article and User:Liliana Dioguardi as part of this effort. See these articles[2][3] and the ICDISS article talk page[4].
• While these articles seem to be legitimate subjects, Dioguardi is responsible for all, or almost all their content - this makes these articles suspect for NPOV reasons.. I urge Wikipedians with a political theory/history/international relations/international law background to help build these articles beyond their sad "cover story" beginnings. Bwithh 05:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Melian Dialogue

Why isn't the Melian Dialogue by Thucydides mentioned in this article? It is one of the earliest conecepts of the international law arguement and one of the most important. Also this article seems to take the position that international law exists when an arguement can be made that it doesn't. --Firebird 04:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Melian Dialogue: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue

I agree. One of the dominant strains of international political theory (realism) poses that international law is mere "superstructure" and largely irrelevant to how states interact. In addition, the sections on enforcement need serious work. They do not even mention that, in an anarchic legal environment (i.e., one with no overarching sovereign), enforcement by its very nature is self-help. Epstein's Mother 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Law of nations

Cleanup required: International law versus the above!!!

Also: We can disregard the PRIVATE part - if we use as Article title Law of nations!!!

Yours truly,

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Higgins quote

I suggest deleting the following quote from the introduction:

According to the President of the International Court of Justice, Rosalyn Higgins, public international law is a normative system "harnessed to the achievement of common values —values that speak to us all, whether we are rich or poor, black or white, of any religion or none, or come from countries that are industrialized or developing".[1]

First, it's POV. Arguably, public international law is not normative at all, but contractual ("you do X, and I will do Y"). Second, it's meaningless. I mean that seriously. Parse the sentence, and it doesn't make any sense. What is a normative system harnessed to the achievement of common values? How can a normative system be harnessed? If you have common values, why would you need a normative system? It's just post-modern jargon without any substance. Epstein's Mother 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

International Law

I'm not sure I agree with the comment that the UN provides a constitution for public international law. Public International Law existed long before the UN did in its own form, and as the world has changed (explosion in the number of states, scarcity of resources, post-colonialism/self-determination, globalisation etc) has undergone its own transformation to make it fit for purpose. The UN is a complex organisation in and of itself, and the only way it could be considered as being of grave importance is thanks to its court, the ICJ which is the only court at the moment with a general jurisdiction, as opposed to a special subject matter jurisdiction. Granted, art 38 of the statute of the ICJ does outline some of the sources of PIL, but that itself is hardly a contentious matter - again, states have long recognised themselves subject to treaties they enter into and other customary laws. Sephui 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Sephui 23:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have posted an "international law" question on another part of this Wikepedia page. But I am not sure how active a discussion this page is. Some of the edits are fairly old. I do have a question regarding international law and it relates to another Wikepedia page called "Originas of World War One". It involves a country's right to mobilize. Any input would be most appreciated.EdwardLovette (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

EAC

The difference in approach of the present EAC is the involment of the peoples of the region through sensitization of all sectors of the stakeholders, the mistake made by the defunct EAC which is, according to our opinion, is being ignored by the European Union. In most cases where the peoples of Europe are consulted, a good percentage have opted against the trends taken by the institutional leaders. However, the strength of the new approach of the EAC is still to be proved by time.

• Have removed this because I didn't understand what it meant - the person who wrote it appeared to be a student in Italy. Does anyone get what 'sensitization of all sectors of the stakeholders' means? If yes, please add the block back in & reword it a little bit better. Thanks. Sephui 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Martens Clause

I have addes a "See also Martens Clause", perhapse if someone is interested they could weave a mention of it directly into this text, as it has had a large effect on Internation humanitarian law and the interpretation of IHL treaties. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The European Union

Main article: European Union law "The European Union is the first and only example of a supra-national legal framework, where sovereign nations have pooled their authority through a system of courts and political institutions. It constitutes a new legal order in international law[1] [1] for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states."

I challenge the forgoing and intend to delete it as OR.

Persuade me that the EU and not the League of Nations is the first supra-national legal framework? As far as I know, the EU doesn't have a constitution, nor has sovereignity been ceeded - except by treaty. The League of Nations, NATO and the UN entered into Charters (Constitutions), which puts them ahead of the EU? Raggz 09:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The European Union is considered to be sui generis. Generally speaking, we are referring to the fact that the EU is a legal framework on a supra-national level - the League of Nations and the other examples you list are political international institutions/organizations, whose overriding function is to act as a forum for state negotiation etc. The EU, on the other hand, is somewhere between a super-state and a federation. Member States of the EU have vested some of their competence in the courts and political institutions (Commission, Council & European Parliament). Furthermore, Member States have allowed the EU machinery to confer rights on individuals capable of protection by national courts & the EU courts, as well as imposing obligations on them. To that extent, the constitutional qualities of the EU cannot be ignored (See Van Gend En Loos, Simmenthal, Costa v ENEL and Factortame for examples of how it works). Supra-national legal framework in my mind therefore is an apt description of what the EU is, as opposed to the other bodies.

If you want to challenge the wording of this, go ahead. The International Law article is lacking in general, and its function somewhat obsolete given the existence of the Public International Law article. They should probably be merged. Sephui 22:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I just noticed that you'd deleted the broken link - the website for links to EU cases has recently changed. If anyone else comes across any in the future just try eur-lex.europa.eu for the new transcripts. Sephui 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it, and stand by it. Read the case, Van Gend en Loos, which is in the reference that I also wrote in. References are meant to do the job of persuasion for you. The League of Nations, like the United Nations is intergovernmental, not supranational. Supranational means above. The principle of supremacy of EU law makes it different. If you have any further questions, then please consult a good book. EU Law by Craig and de Burca, is good. Or Public International Law by Ian Brownlie. I can assure you there is no original research. Wikidea 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In case the Van Gend case was the broken link referred to above, here it is: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61962J0026:EN:HTML On the pages, I've noticed just now that the talks were overlapping from PIL and IL, and I've just fixed it. Apologies if there was any confusion, because I was the one that probably botched the move about 6 months ago. Wikidea 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

International law (public) or Law of nations

Either usage is better. And the former conforms to Wiki style. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Google search results

• "Public international law": 877,000 hits [5].

• "International law": 18,400,000 [6].

• "Law of nations": 630,000 [7].

• "Public international": 1,240,000 [8].

• "Public law (international)": 11,100 [9].

• "International public law": 93,800 [10].

Accordingly, we should REVERT. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Disambiguation practice

I call the editors attention to the Wiki style practice/format to make distinctions as follows: [[Term (qualification)]]. Accordingly, we should revert. --Ludvikus 18:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

International law, Public & Private

It aapears to me that the editors herein essentially adopted usages - contrary to Wikipedia style - in the context of the need to Disambiguate. Unless such usage as these are justified, we must conform to Wiki style if we wish to distinguish between Private , and Public, International law. --Ludvikus 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is rubbish. I personally do not care what wikistyle is. There is only one acceptable way of phrasing the title of the page, which is "public international law". That's why I've reverted it. Wikidea 23:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The embedded reference "International Law (public)" might be fine, even in the title, but it's not proper English to refer to it that way in the article. I strongly suspect that the wikistyle doesn't require the use of improper English. As a general reference matter ("International Law (public)" versus "Public International Law"), I strongly suspect that the vast majority of non-lawyers, when they use the term "international law" mean public international law. Epstein's Mother 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I understand you passionate commitment. But where is/are the argument(s), the reference(s)?

Here's the message just left on my Discussion page:

     == Public international law ==
    
    Do not change the page in that way. I have posted a comment on the page.
    You are incorrect, whatever the wikistyle that you've come up with.
    There's a correct and an incorrect title, and the one you've chosen is incorrect.
     '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">
     [[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So it's 2 against 1 - what are we engaging in, fistycuffs? Here an argument on my part. Libraries use the cataloging techniques that embody this method also. I've written an article on an important British historian. He is Colin Holmes. However, there are more than one relatively famous Colin Holmes in the world, and one wonder which one I had in mind. Well, Wikipedia adopted the methodolgy (or Style if you wish) employed by libraries in the United States - put a qualification, or qualifier, right after, and in parentheses, So: Colin Holmes (British historian), and voi la'', we've got the distinction made. Accordingly, the subject of our inquiry herein is International law. But a distinction exists within this subject matter which is given by the two qualifiers: Private and Public. So we vnow can write two (2) different articles about our subject, which recognize the respective distinctions, and we do not need to invent two new three-word phrases, such as "private international law" and public international law." Holdon - I maybe wrong - and ignorant. But bit's up to you two guys to show me the error of my ways. The authoritarian tone above does not persuade me - or any other rational Wikipedian. You guys have the burden of demonstrating my apparent stupidity in the matter.

As for me, here's another example from my Wiki experience. We have in the world more than one newspaper named The Times. There's that arguably most important one in London. So what shall we do, invented a new name, namely, The London Times? No, Wiki policy gives us an implicit rule, do this: The Times (London).

And a similar problem actually just came up for me. I was writing about a paper called the Public Ledger. But there are more than one so named entities. It turns out that librarians already solved that English language, and so we have the Public Ledger (Philadelphia) - the paper is distinguished by its home city, and so forth.

So, gentlemen, will you please pursuade me that I'm wrong and you two are write? Or is it that you think we must fight it out? Is that not a violation of Public law? I guess the argument must be vhere that one need not obey the law to know what it is, private, national, or international, right?

Best wishes (and please excuse any overlooked typos), --Ludvikus 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you touch on your own answer. Colloqually, the Times in London is known as the "London Times" -- unless, of course, you happen to live in London, in which case it is just "The Times". So, if you published an article in that magazine and were to reference it in a bibliography, you would just write "The Times" -- but if you were telling someone that you published an article in that august newspaper (and you aren't living in England) you would say "the London Times". In the case above, you would no more say "International Law (public) is..." than you would say "The Times (London) is..." It's just silly.

Also, if you actually do a search for the London Times in Wikipedia, you'll find it under "The Times".

I've got no real problem with the article being titled "International Law (public)" -- though I think it's unnecessary since public international law is, indeed, what most people mean when they say "international law" (only lawyers might mean something else, and even there it would be a strange lawyer). The only real disambiguation necessary is with private international law. In that sense, just as "The Times" of London is what most people mean when they say "The Times" (with other similarly named newspapers disambiguated), public international law is what most people mean when they say "international law," with private international law disambiguated.

I take it that English might not be your first language, so it could be a translation issue. But to use your library example, while a library might catalogue the Philadelphia Public Ledger under "Public Ledger (Philadelphia)", your bibliography in your paper (depending on your style manual) would probably say "Public Ledger" or "Philadelphia Public Ledger". It's the same here. Epstein's Mother 03:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Although I was born in Czechoslovakia and speak, spoke, several languages, I immigrated with my parents to the United States at the age of 10. So English has become my most intimate language.

Now I think the problem we have is that you do not distinguish between the wriiten and the spoken' language. The wriiten language must be more precise, while when you read what's written, you might not need to verbalize all that you see. Accordingly, when you see "The Times (London)" you would or could read it simply as "The Times." It was only in the late 19th century that people began reading not "out loud." Accordingly, we here in New York (City), as opposed to New York (State), call our major paper "The New York Times." But we also have the abbreviation (so to speak), "The Times," by which we mean the former.

So I think you need to put aside how what's written sounds to you, because not everything you see needs to be vocalized anymore. We are no longer in what you Europeans call grammar school (and we call elementary school) where we were required to read out load.

So, "International law (public)" may be thought of as being read simply as "International law," with the word, "public" merely acting as a flag. You may deduce the same for "International law (private)."

These conventions are consistent with the fact that we know what we mean in context, while at the same time we are supplyed with the distinguishing flags for (encyclopedic) classification purposes.

I hope you understand my points. --Ludvikus 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

---

PS: Did anyone notice that I repaired and uploaded (the new version) of that beautiful (United Nations) Poster image? --Ludvikus 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to make my points short and sweet: a) We already have the International Law article where you've introduced the international law (public/private) divide. I don't have much of a problem over this, as I suspect that the wikistyle you're referring to may be the fact that wiki ought to favour amateurs over specialist. Personally think it is unecessary given that the branches had already been identified... Any person with more than a passing interest in international law will know that they are either searching for the public version or the private. b) To me, given that we have qualified which branch of international law is being spoken about on the main page (which is essentially a disambiguation page), there's no reason to do it on the main page of the specific article. While I'm all for making it easier for amateurs to find the information, once something has been introduced it is a good idea to use the specific terms of that branch. Sephui 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to defend this choice of title! It's clear as the day that it's correct. I'm adding some major textbooks to the references list to the title. I appreciate Ludvikus' politeness, but it's got to stay with the same title. (And good on you for repairing the image). Wikidea 09:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Wikidea, I appreciate your good idea of contributing a reference which supports your claim with a title (much better than your use of the clearness of the day):

    == References ==
         * Brownlie, Ian (2003)
         Principles of Public International Law,
         Oxford University Press,
         6th Ed.,
         ISBN 0199260710

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright you ask?

Please check out the Copyright question I'm being asked about the beautiful poster above. I only repaired the damage. So I cannot answer the Copyright questions I'm being asked. --Ludvikus 11:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

US View on International Law--how's it looking.

I've done several edits to the section on "US View on International Law"; it's getting really long, and I think it might be time to move it to a separate page, perhaps called "Public International Law and the United States".

Also, I just wrote a section on "lawfare" and added it to the "US view" section; I'm not sure that it's NPOV; I'd encourage others to ruthlessly edit it.

I've also tried to tone down what might be viewed as a slight stridency in some of my previous writing in the US section; it still is probably POV. As I'm from the US, and strongly believe in international humanitarian law, and favor US support for humanitarian law, it might be a bit biased, at least from systemic bias, if not outright political bias.

Other perspectives would be welcome. Efforts to find sources to cite also would be great, if anyone's interested. Katana0182 —Preceding comment was added at 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is still greatly one-sided. It should include a discussion of Neorealist theories on international law, since these theories dominate modern academic discussions of international affairs, are held by many current international policymakers both in the United States and abroad, and tend to be highly disdainful of the practical value of international law. Also, there is far too much emphasis given to what states say, and not much on what states do (notwithstanding discussions of Nuremburg, etc., which merely use as evidence activity by powerful states that coincided with their own interests as evidence that these states give credence to international law. Evidence of a powerful state failing to act in its own selfish interests because of countervailing international law would be far more persuasive.) That said, thanks for the work you've done. Epstein's Mother 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

US View on International Law--how's it looking.

I've done several edits to the section on "US View on International Law"; it's getting really long, and I think it might be time to move it to a separate page, perhaps called "Public International Law and the United States".

Also, I just wrote a section on "lawfare" and added it to the "US view" section; I'm not sure that it's NPOV; I'd encourage others to ruthlessly edit it.

I've also tried to tone down what might be viewed as a slight stridency in some of my previous writing in the US section; it still is probably POV. As I'm from the US, and strongly believe in international humanitarian law, and favor US support for humanitarian law, it might be a bit biased, at least from systemic bias, if not outright political bias.

Other perspectives would be welcome. Efforts to find sources to cite also would be great, if anyone's interested. Katana0182 —Preceding comment was added at 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is still greatly one-sided. It should include a discussion of Neorealist theories on international law, since these theories dominate modern academic discussions of international affairs, are held by many current international policymakers both in the United States and abroad, and tend to be highly disdainful of the practical value of international law. Also, there is far too much emphasis given to what states say, and not much on what states do (notwithstanding discussions of Nuremburg, etc., which merely use as evidence activity by powerful states that coincided with their own interests as evidence that these states give credence to international law. Evidence of a powerful state failing to act in its own selfish interests because of countervailing international law would be far more persuasive.) That said, thanks for the work you've done. Epstein's Mother 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for the length of this post, and thank you for your comments, which I agree with in general. I agree with your argument about neorealism--states do tend to act to maintain the balance of power, regardless of what the law says, especially if what the law says is unclear. I don't believe that there is real evidence for international law acting as a preventative force in macro-scale inter-state matters (like questions of war and peace); that said, I would argue that there is evidence that it does have a preventative effect on the micro-scale, like matters of proper military conduct towards prisoners and civilians...though this may be due to the possibility of reprisal against the violator's own prisoners and civilians.

But, though international law might not prevent atrocities, I would argue that it provides a framework for punishing conduct that falls very far afoul of a very limited set of universal standards, such as those involving genocide (Rwanda, the Balkan Wars, Darfur); massive, deliberate military attacks on civilians (Milosevic in Kosovo, Charles Taylor in Liberia); and blatant wars of conquest and territorial aggression (Iraq invading Kuwait in '90). The more that these acts are punished, especially when they are punished by nations or organizations completely removed from the hostilities, probably has and will have a deterrent effect against the worst violators.

(For example, regardless of whether this is right or wrong, I don't suppose that John Yoo, now that he's retired from the Bush Administration, will be visiting the Low Countries, Scandinavia, or Germany any time soon, at least not without several armored divisions.)

---BEGIN ORIGINAL RESEARCH/POV---

Perhaps the questions surrounding public international law is due to the fact that it exists primarily because people, nations, and international bodies believe in it, rather than it being created by a sovereign authority who could issue and enforce such laws upon nations. There is an inherently arbitrary (and therefore troublesome) character to this sort of law, as it is "constructed" rather than being extant.

But so long as its scope is limited to unquestionable atrocities (like willful massacres of civilians or genocide), I would argue that because nearly all people agree that such atrocities are great evils that should be punished (even though they differ on who should punish it), I would customary international law is binding, as it represents the sovereign will of the members of the human political community, in the very limited sense in which such a community exists. (One could go even further and say that it's implicit in nature; it is arguable that humans evolved disgust towards violence against innocents, as such an attitude helps the species survive to reproduce.) Even if such laws are inherently arbitrary, I would argue that, perhaps in this area, arbitrary laws of very limited scope are better than no laws at all.

--END ORIGINAL RESEARCH/POV---

On a side note, I would certainly agree with putting in the neorealist perspective, which I'm not that familiar with; I only vaguely remember it from my last IR course, and that it has to do with the balance of power. Perhaps there could be a section on how states attempt to shape international laws to gain advantage over other states and to maintain the balance of power?

Thoughts?

Katana0182 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have been involved in a "legal" discussion with another Wikepedia page relating to International Law. They dismissed my question as "unanswerable". The Wikepedia article in question is "Origins of World War One". A former Assistant U.S. Attorney General named James M. Beck published a book in 1914 called "Evidence in the case". It can be downloaded for free at Archive.org. The author states that "the response to mobilization is mobilization. The response is not to declare war". I was hoping someone on this page could tell me if under the international law in place in 1914, was that true? Thank you in advance for any help regarding this matter. I can do the research myself, but not being an attorney, it would be a much slower result. EdwardLovette (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Customary international law and the U.S. President

I reverted to an earlier version because I don't think the new revisions describing interpretation of customary international law as a "political process" shared between the three branches of the U.S. government adequately describe the point being made. First, as discussed previously in the article, while Congress and the courts do play a role in setting and interpreting customary international law, in most cases (which is the point of the sentence in question), this is something determined entirely by the President with advice from the State Dept.'s legal counsel. Technically speaking, court decisions are not part of the "political process" (the executive and legislative branches being the "political" branches of government since they are elected). Second, the number of appellate and Supreme Court decisions, and Congressional acts, interpreting customary international law are quite rare, notwithstanding Hamdan and the foreign detainees act. Indeed, they are the exception that proves the rule, since they came about quite unusually in reaction to an interpretation of treaty law (not so much customary international law) that others objected to. Third, interpretation of customary international law is part of the foreign policy powers of the presidency -- which makes sense when you think that customary international law can be changed almost overnight (see, for example, the history of unrestricted submarine warfare, or the international slave trade) if major states change their activities. Finally, the sentence really is hedged -- it doesn't say that this is always the case, just that it is mostly the case (which is accurate). Epstein's Mother 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)