NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing that comes up in many discussion of international politics is the idea of 'international law'. I'd like some help in clarifying this for me, because I'm not entirely certain about it. My experience with law is limited to advocacy around certain issues.

This is my understanding of international treaties:

1. An international treaty is drawn up (say, one like the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child).

2. Nations ratify it by agreeing to follow it, though they can object to certain clauses, or they can simply sign onto it, but NOT ratify it, showing they agree, but are not willing to be bound by it.

3. Once ratified, the treaty becomes binding, but is not yet LAW in that country. Domestic laws are supposed to be passed that will allow the nation to comply with the treaty.

4. Few international treaties have the 'teeth' to deal with non-compliance.

5. However, nations that ratify treaties are still bound by them, and if someone brings a complaint forward, they can use the treaty as basis (legally) for their complaint and the domestic courts MAY base their judgment on it.

Now, what I'm not clear on is when people say things like the Geneva Convention are not binding to the U.S....didn't the U.S ratify this convention? At what point do international treaties become binding on signatories, and to what extent?

Info on this will be much appreciated! Thanks!

The US *signed* the Geneva Convention, but the Senate didn't ratify it. I'm not entirely sure why.

Ok, I found further info

The US ratified the Conventions, with the exception of the 1977 addendum.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020212.html

Here's a quick article explaining it very quickly.

And here's the wikipedia link

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

Please send these questions to my TG box and I will provide the responses to you. I have a Masters Degree in International Law but cannot at this moment respond to your enquiries as the work day is ending.

Is tomorrow too late?

Please send these questions to my TG box and I will provide the responses to you. I have a Masters Degree in International Law but cannot at this moment respond to your enquiries as the work day is ending.

Is tomorrow too late?

It would be nice if you could post a general laymans guide sometime, as these questions bother more than just Sinuhue. :)

The UN is no more powerful than the one here in NationStates. Countries do not have to obey and the UN doesnt have the means to enforce any of their resolutions. And I find the term "United" nations ironic because there are 5 countries (or maybe six) who have veto power (I cant remember who they all are but I'm sure someone else can find it). Thus, the UN really is under the controll of those nations.

Please send these questions to my TG box and I will provide the responses to you. I have a Masters Degree in International Law but cannot at this moment respond to your enquiries as the work day is ending.

Is tomorrow too late?
No, that'd be perfect! Will do when I get a sec...and THANKS!

The UN is no more powerful than the one here in NationStates. Countries do not have to obey and the UN doesnt have the means to enforce any of their resolutions. And I find the term "United" nations ironic because there are 5 countries (or maybe six) who have veto power (I cant remember who they all are but I'm sure someone else can find it). Thus, the UN really is under the controll of those nations.
Oh, Hitler Jr. is back. Hush puppy...I'm asking for information, not propoganda. Are you still on my brother's land?

The UN is no more powerful than the one here in NationStates. Countries do not have to obey and the UN doesnt have the means to enforce any of their resolutions.Woohoo!!!!!
I want Iranian Nukes, and I want them now :D

One thing that comes up in many discussion of international politics is the idea of 'international law'. I'd like some help in clarifying this for me, because I'm not entirely certain about it. My experience with law is limited to advocacy around certain issues.

This is my understanding of international treaties:

1. An international treaty is drawn up (say, one like the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child).

2. Nations ratify it by agreeing to follow it, though they can object to certain clauses, or they can simply sign onto it, but NOT ratify it, showing they agree, but are not willing to be bound by it.

3. Once ratified, the treaty becomes binding, but is not yet LAW in that country. Domestic laws are supposed to be passed that will allow the nation to comply with the treaty.

4. Few international treaties have the 'teeth' to deal with non-compliance.

5. However, nations that ratify treaties are still bound by them, and if someone brings a complaint forward, they can use the treaty as basis (legally) for their complaint and the domestic courts MAY base their judgment on it.

Now, what I'm not clear on is when people say things like the Geneva Convention are not binding to the U.S....didn't the U.S ratify this convention? At what point do international treaties become binding on signatories, and to what extent?

Info on this will be much appreciated! Thanks!


Treaties are subject to interpretation. So, regardless of what you've signed or ratified, there is a larger body of interpretation.

Additionally, making something binding implies enforcement. That is, the other signatories must be willing to enforce the treaty. Most are not.

Treaty organizations, such as the UN or NATO, have limited ability to enforce some aspects of their member's behavior - but once again, this is limited by the willingness of the other members to actually do something, as well as limits within the treaty.

The UN, for example, cannot interfere in the internal affairs of any member nation or interfere in their self-determination (which the UN defines as a "right").

So, if I am killing off a certain ethnic group within my own country, and I define that as an internal affair or an act of self-determination, I'm bound to get a few sympathizers (China historically protects both as rights), and I can massacre whom I please, and the UN will not intervene.

You're fooling yourself.

The Hague Convention ostensibly limits the use of certain weapons on people.

Two points:
1. The US is not a signatory, but voluntarily complies.
2. The Hague Convention says that you can't use weapons that are cruel. So, no hollowpoint bullets, because they cause more fatal injuries (and more hideous injury) than ordinary bullets. But, high explosive shells with wire fragmentation is OK. You know, the kind that strip half your flesh from your body, amputate random limbs, and leave you to die over the next hour or so in a medically untreatable condition.

The treaties are full of holes, you know. Holes you could drive a genocide through. Don't make me laugh.

The UN is no more powerful than the one here in NationStates. Countries do not have to obey and the UN doesnt have the means to enforce any of their resolutions. And I find the term "United" nations ironic because there are 5 countries (or maybe six) who have veto power (I cant remember who they all are but I'm sure someone else can find it). Thus, the UN really is under the controll of those nations.

The countries that have the power of Veto on the security council are the original nuclear powers. USA, UK, France, USSR, China (West to East order)

You're fooling yourself.

I'm fooling myself that I'm looking for information? Um...okay....????


The treaties are full of holes, you know. Holes you could drive a genocide through. Don't make me laugh.
Well, I thought making people laugh was a good thing...

You DO realise I'm asking, not telling, right? Sheesh.

Come on...where are all the armchair experts I keep coming across whenever anyone talks about what the U.S does in Guantanamo?

The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

As a treaty, it is subject to interpretation.

In some cases, the US is justifying its actions under its own interpretations.
In other cases, the US is using its provisions to support military regulations - regulations under which some US soldiers have been investigated, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

Other nations have done the same thing in the past - in fact, historically, other nations, including current members of the EU, have been equally harsh or harsher on prisoners and who may be termed an enemy combatant.

Historically, being shot on the spot without trial is the Geneva Convention permissible action with a non-combatant.

Other signatories have also denied its extension to non-signatories.

It also has a rather meager enforcement mechanism.

So, what's your question?

Come on...where are all the armchair experts I keep coming across whenever anyone talks about what the U.S does in Guantanamo?

You really know how to pick the dirtiest topics.

That's a completely different ball of wax as it involves conflicts between humanitarian and human rights law as well between domestic legislation and international treaty obligations.

I would suggest you not use the Guantanamo Bay as a basis of trying to grasp IL as you will get a myriad of responses that most likely will contradict each other.

Basically, you have existing humanitarian law standards for the treatment of prisoners conflicting with new definitions of combatants put forward by a number of states. The most semantic argument is that the individuals being held at Camp X-Ray are entitled to the most basic form of rights defined by Articles of Optional Protocol 1 of the Third Geneva Convention 1977. The most restrictive classification for prisoners vis-a-vis rights is Article 48 and 47 (mercenaries and spies) but even they are alloted certain rights.

Now I really have to get going.

P.S. check you TG's for an initial response to your enquiries.

The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

As a treaty, it is subject to interpretation.

In some cases, the US is justifying its actions under its own interpretations.
In other cases, the US is using its provisions to support military regulations - regulations under which some US soldiers have been investigated, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

Other nations have done the same thing in the past - in fact, historically, other nations, including current members of the EU, have been equally harsh or harsher on prisoners and who may be termed an enemy combatant.

Historically, being shot on the spot without trial is the Geneva Convention permissible action with a non-combatant.

Other signatories have also denied its extension to non-signatories.

It also has a rather meager enforcement mechanism.

So, what's your question?
My question has very little to do with the U.S and more to do with how international treaties function...the actual mechanisms in place. I'm not focusing on the Geneva convention.

What actual steps can be taken against a nation that violates a treaty it has ratified? You are saying "next to nothing", but I want the official version. You can use the Geneva convention as an example, if you wish.

You sound a bit snarky today...something eating you?

Well, we could start with why the US and other countries don't agree on who is a prisoner of war, and who is an enemy combantant. Under the Geneva Conventions, there are different protections for each.

The US is protected against enforcement at this point by two factors. One is that the US may within the treaty define certain people as enemy combatants. Thus, if it treats those combatants according to the convention, it is difficult to imagine anything more substantial than protests from other signatories.

See Convention I, Article 13, Sections 1 and 2.
See Convention III, Articles 4 and 87.
See Convention IV, Article 64
See 1977 Protocol I, Article 44, Section 33 (which not all nations accept)

The US is also prosecuting soldiers that it believes have stepped outside the lines the US has drawn.

The Geneva Conventions are supposed to be self-enforcing. A "High Contracting Party" agrees to pass its own internal laws, enact its own internal regulations, and provide for its own internal enforcement and punishment of activity it sees as contary to the provisions of the convention.

Additionally, try to interpret the following:

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties , even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

It might be argued then, that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and indeed any member of al-Qaeda, do not accept and apply the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Therefore, although the US is a signatory, they are not, and since they are not, and do not accept and apply its provisions (example - their constant taking of hostages, and the torture and execution of those hostages on television), then they are not subject to its protections. At all.

Go ahead, look around the Conventions text, including the Protocols I and II that not everyone agrees to, and let me know if you can stretch it to fit.

Go ahead, look around the Conventions text, including the Protocols I and II that not everyone agrees to, and let me know if you can stretch it to fit.
Stretch it to fit what? Don't make assumptions about my agenda here. I'm looking only for clarification on a subject that everyone pretends they are an expert in.

I will look into the articles you've described...thanks....

So basically, you are saying that treaties govern only the parties that ratify them, and that if a bound nation has dealings with an unbound nation, the treaty does not apply. Is that correct? Or, are you saying that a bound nation dealing with another bound nation that refuses to obey the treaty, no longer has to obey the treaty either? Wouldn't that be a little like:

A man who obeys the law and does not steal meets a second man who is a thief. The first man steals the thief's shoes. It is a lawful act because the second man refuses to be bound by the law, and therefore the law against stealing does not apply to stealing from him.

Which one is correct?

Sinuhue, you stopped pimping :)

Sinuhue, you stopped pimping :)
I'm pretty happy about that, being feminist and all:). But seriously, at least I could pronounce that...how the heck do you say ZX81 H4x0r0r ?

what I'm not clear on is when people say things like the Geneva Convention are not binding to the U.S....didn't the U.S ratify this convention? At what point do international treaties become binding on signatories, and to what extent?
The US did indeed ratify the Geneva Conventions, but this international treaty like all international treaties is toothless if a nation decides to ignore its provisions. International courts of justice can threaten punitive actions, even leavy massive fines, but they have no way of enforcing these actions.

This can be a major problem when armed conflict erupts as the result of a treaty violation. The only time I can remember when the UN authorized military action against the violator of a treaty was in Korea, and the only reason the UN could take action even then was because the representative of the USSR was for some reason absent when the debate was held and a vote taken.

Stretch it to fit what? Don't make assumptions about my agenda here. I'm looking only for clarification on a subject that everyone pretends they are an expert in.

Everyone stretches it to fit their needs.

Example: By the convention, you may be able to say that the US is a "High Contracting Party", and if in a conflict with another signatory, must obey all the rules. But, if in a conflict with armed combatants (insurgents arguably fit this), or with a nation that is not a "High Contracting Party" (the Taliban and al-Q fit this), then you must evaluate whether or not they are willing to follow the Convention.

If they are not (and it is arguable that they are definitely not), then the "High Contracting Party" doesn't have to do anything but shoot the combatants as soon as they are captured or found.

So, by the book, the US is being a lot nicer than the Conventions allow. It makes it difficult to castigate the US in a legal sense (although you can appear on a talk show and still say the US isn't doing this or that properly).

So it's basically a murky, murky field out there...I'm being tutored by Guinness on this one, since I am particularly interested in this subject, and once I actually know something about it, I'll continue this discusion. Should take about 7 FREAKIN' YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

So it's basically a murky, murky field out there...I'm being tutored by Guinness on this one, since I am particularly interested in this subject, and once I actually know something about it, I'll continue this discusion. Should take about 7 FREAKIN' YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

It's called "law". Here in the US, you have to take a test (LSAT) to see if you're smart enough to get in (the test has nothing to do with law school). Then you go to law school for 3 years, and take a test (the Bar exam) which has nothing to do with what you just learned.

Then you're a lawyer, and you're licensed to interpret bullshit.

The UN is no more powerful than the one here in NationStates. Countries do not have to obey and the UN doesnt have the means to enforce any of their resolutions. And I find the term "United" nations ironic because there are 5 countries (or maybe six) who have veto power (I cant remember who they all are but I'm sure someone else can find it). Thus, the UN really is under the controll of those nations.

If I remember my high school history correctly (there's no guarantee, it was a long time ago) I think the nations with veto power are the UK, the US, the USSR, France and I was thinking Germany, but East? West? Oh, that was so long ago.

The nub of the argument, as has been implied, is that ratified treaties are enforceable in domestic courts - not by other states. To take Guantanamo (though I know the question was more general), if the US courts found that the US government was breaching the conventions it would order a remedy, and if the government refused then individuals in the government, of any rank, could be held in contempt of court. However, John Browning's analysis is probably correct, that the US is not in breach of any ratified convention. The courts will therefore probably not rule against Guantanamo on those grounds.

Remember that courts are not there to do what is fair or what is right. They are there to uphold the law and cannot go beyond that (or should not - they sometimes do).

Remember also that the Geneva conventions are not the only laws protecting prisoners. The House of Lords, the UK's highest court, recently ruled that anti-terror legislation could not be read in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and issued a declaration of incompatibility (at least I assume that's how they ruled - they certainly found against the legislation). In the US the equivalent might be to rule that the detainment was unconstitutional, which is certainly possible.

Remember that courts are not there to do what is fair or what is right. They are there to uphold the law and cannot go beyond that (or should not - they sometimes do).

This is called "judicial legislation" and is definitely disallowed by the US Constitution.

I'm pretty much a "strict constructionist." Does it show? :D

It's called "law". Here in the US, you have to take a test (LSAT) to see if you're smart enough to get in (the test has nothing to do with law school). Then you go to law school for 3 years, and take a test (the Bar exam) which has nothing to do with what you just learned.

Then you're a lawyer, and you're licensed to interpret bullshit.
:p
If I wanted to make decent money, I'd BE a lawyer instead of a teacher. I don't want to be an expert...just a little more informed than the average person spouting off about international law:). You should be happy I am trying to rise above my ignorance...

That being said...if you want to fund my education I might take you up on it....

:p
If I wanted to make decent money, I'd BE a lawyer instead of a teacher. I don't want to be an expert...just a little more informed than the average person spouting off about international law:). You should be happy I am trying to rise above my ignorance...

That being said...if you want to fund my education I might take you up on it....

In most US states, you only have to pass the bar exam. You don't need to go to law school.

There are quickie courses you can take that train you just to take the bar...

and you can try as many times as you like...

In most US states, you only have to pass the bar exam. You don't need to go to law school.

There are quickie courses you can take that train you just to take the bar...

and you can try as many times as you like...
But I don't live in the US, nor do I wish to practice law there...does that mean a massive bursery from you is NOT forthcoming? :(

The countries that have the power of Veto on the security council are the original nuclear powers. USA, UK, France, USSR, China (West to East order)


Quick note. USSR doesn't exist any longer, I believe you mean Russia. (Can't currently remember its official title). However, it does still have veto rights last I checked.