Patrick O'Brian Discussion Forum

maverick

Based on what I've always read, "Treaties are made to be broken."
Their legal foundation is pretty shaky.



On Sat Oct 31, Bob Bridges wrote
--------------------------------
>Speaking as the Nothing-But-Reasonable poster, I did after all sneer a little when I spoke of International Law ("all capitalized and everything"), so I accept Ernest's definition as his notion of what the term means, and as a mild rebuke for my sneer.  But if a treaty between two or more countries is what Christo meant by "international law", then I maintain it's a term intended to make it sound as though countries that break treaties are in the same legal situation as a man who's robbed a liquor store or mugged a passer-by, and it just ain't so.  If and when we have a world government—or more likely a century or two after that—the two situations will be more similar.  Until then, the sovereignty of nations prevents an exact comparison.

>On Sat Oct 31, Max Trainer wrote
>--------------------------------
>>Bob very clearly asked for a citation to the assertion that Iraq 2 was a violation of international law. You deliberately chose to act as though he denied that international law exists. Your only cite was to Iran not Iraq.

>>So, answer the question posed or not, but don't insult the man that has been nothing but reasonable on this forum for years.

>>On Sat Oct 31, The Last of the True French Short Bastards wrote
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Go back to school, Bob. These are terms whose meaning has been well-understood for decades.