Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    what exactly are the other sources then?
    Bi and multi-lateral agreements (ie our control of Gibraltar being based on the Treaty of Utrecht), convention and precedent (ie the "rules" around the declaration of war), regional unions etc. Did you think international law didn't exist before the UN did? Or simply that the UN made all of that obsolete?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Bi and multi-lateral agreements (ie our control of Gibraltar being based on the Treaty of Utrecht), convention and precedent (ie the "rules" around the declaration of war), regional unions etc. Did you think international law didn't exist before the UN did? Or simply that the UN made all of that obsolete?
    they aren't as binding as the UN though are they, I mean, the UN was created in part because there weren't agreements between some nations on how treaties and agreements were interpreted and such, I mean I doubt you could hold much water if you went to war based on a treaty from 1328 if it goes against a UN convention for instance.

    also the ambiguity of talking about all existing treaties and agreements really leaves you open to making just about anything technically legal if some obscure treaty allows it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    they aren't as binding as the UN though are they, I mean, the UN was created in part because there weren't agreements between some nations on how treaties and agreements were interpreted and such, I mean I doubt you could hold much water if you went to war based on a treaty from 1328 if it goes against a UN convention for instance.

    also the ambiguity of talking about all existing treaties and agreements really leaves you open to making just about anything technically legal if some obscure treaty allows it.
    I wasn't saying the UN wasn't important, simply that it's not the only source of international law. People - like yourself - say things like "technically legal" but it doesn't work like that internationally. There is no "technically" anything, because there's no monopoly on force or monopoly on the action of law. In the UK, the UK state can reasonably be said to have a monopoly on the provision of law - they make and enforce the laws, they prosecute people that break them and provide the judiciary for private claims. That doesn't happen internationally. As much as the UN might want to perform this role, it can't. Someone can technically break a UN resolution, but that's different to "the law". It's not as cut and dry as a lot of people like to make out.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I wasn't saying the UN wasn't important, simply that it's not the only source of international law. People - like yourself - say things like "technically legal" but it doesn't work like that internationally. There is no "technically" anything, because there's no monopoly on force or monopoly on the action of law. In the UK, the UK state can reasonably be said to have a monopoly on the provision of law - they make and enforce the laws, they prosecute people that break them and provide the judiciary for private claims. That doesn't happen internationally. As much as the UN might want to perform this role, it can't. Someone can technically break a UN resolution, but that's different to "the law". It's not as cut and dry as a lot of people like to make out.
    I don't think a single entity need have a monopoly on the provision of law in order for its decrees to be defined as laws. Look at the EU as an example - it relies entirely on the co-operation of its member states for the enforcement of its regulations, and yet few would question their status as laws. This is very similar to how the UN is meant to work; member states are supposed to ensure that they abide by the various treaties, and, if a state/political entity doesn't, other member states are supposed to intervene to uphold the rules. This arrangement is very similar to the original legal systems of classical antiquity - the concept of policing was itself only devised in the early modern period. Laws were left to individuals to uphold.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    I don't think a single entity need have a monopoly on the provision of law in order for its decrees to be defined as laws. Look at the EU as an example - it relies entirely on the co-operation of its member states for the enforcement of its regulations, and yet few would question their status as laws. This is very similar to how the UN is meant to work; member states are supposed to ensure that they abide by the various treaties, and, if a state/political entity doesn't, other member states are supposed to intervene to uphold the rules. This arrangement is very similar to the original legal systems of classical antiquity - the concept of policing was itself only devised in the early modern period. Laws were left to individuals to uphold.
    But they aren't laws until the national legislatures deem them so, which is why France and Italy blithely ignore the ones they don't like and face no penalties at all for doing so. The EU proposes the law, the national government actually enacts it. Everyone mostly plays along and that's why it works (well, "works") but it all stems from the national governments. The difference between the EU and the UN is that typically EU legislation relates to the activities of people and businesses within the EU nations - where the national governments can enforce laws - where as UN resolutions and whatnot relate to the actual governing of a country, of which there's no one to enforce it (unless the security council agrees to bomb them to hell).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do you feel that people can be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves?

    With obesity, etc, one could suggest the government does know better and should as such aim to reduce one's capacity to harm themselves, whereas others believe it is one's human right to destroy their health.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FelixTheKat)
    Do you feel that people can be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves?

    With obesity, etc, one could suggest the government does know better and should as such aim to reduce one's capacity to harm themselves, whereas others believe it is one's human right to destroy their health.
    Not always, no. Obviously we can't physically regulate how much/what people eat everyday, but we can incentivise and discourage in order to lower the risk of the population suffering from health problems and obesity. I don't know about it being "one's human right to destroy their health" but ultimately there is only so much government can do to prevent that. We should be doing our best to prevent people wanting or trying to do so as much as possible, but beyond that it is up to individuals to decide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have a question To ask the party: when do I get my membership reinstated??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clayton2k14)
    I have a question To ask the party: when do I get my membership reinstated??
    If you turn PMs on the leader will PM you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clayton2k14)
    I have a question To ask the party: when do I get my membership reinstated??

    (Original post by Mechie)
    If you turn PMs on the leader will PM you.
    Clayton has done now and I've been in touch
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    BTW, my real name isn't even Clayton, yeno?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clayton2k14)
    BTW, my real name isn't even Clayton, yeno?
    How many parties have you tried to join?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Audi has been removed from his position as Labour MP. I'm delighted to announce DivinityA has been appointed to replace him!

    And just so there is a record of it in here, 002 is also now an MP following Vionar's earlier resignation.

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Audi has been removed from his position as Labour MP. I'm delighted to announce DivinityA has been appointed to replace him!

    And just so there is a record of it in here, 002 is also now an MP following Vionar's earlier resignation.
    Congratulations to both new MPs, welcome to the Opposition!
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Thank you!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Audi has been removed from his position as Labour MP. I'm delighted to announce DivinityA has been appointed to replace him!

    And just so there is a record of it in here, 002 is also now an MP following Vionar's earlier resignation.
    Congratulations to both DivinityA and 002! I look forward to working with you .
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What is TSR Labour's response to Bob Crow attacking TOCs for cancelling trains in a storm that has resulted in deaths, property damage and also large amounts of infrastructure damage to the railways?

    Would they rather us all plow into fallen trees at 100 mph or not go on trains and not die?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Is the current TSR Labour Party committed to socialism or are they more New Labour like in their ideology?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    What is TSR Labour's response to Bob Crow attacking TOCs for cancelling trains in a storm that has resulted in deaths, property damage and also large amounts of infrastructure damage to the railways?

    Would they rather us all plow into fallen trees at 100 mph or not go on trains and not die?
    More trains were cancelled than was necessary for maintaining safety standards. That was Crow's claim. And why would you ask Labour about this?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will95206)
    Is the current TSR Labour Party committed to socialism or are they more New Labour like in their ideology?
    We are a Socialist Party and are committed to Socialism. What we can do to best bring Socialism about, and to what extent it can and should operate within the confines of a predominantly capitalist world, is however up for debate. We share very little with the Blair era in terms of our current policy, and on many issues such as tuition fees and foreign policy are taking the exact opposite approach to what he exercised.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2018
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.