4 ms·

https://www.civilized.life/despite-treaties-justin-trudeau-could-go-ahead-with-legalization-1543162197.html https://www.civilized.life/despite-treaties-justin-t

https://www.civilized.life/despite-treaties-justin-trudeau-could-go-ahead-with-legalization-1543162197.html https://www.civilized.life/despite-treaties-justin-trudeau-c...

MichaelGG 11y ago
So basically a country can pull out of a bad treaty and all they're going to get is some strongly worded letters? Hopefully once Canada and others defy these terrible agreements, poorer countries will realise they have a lot to gain by ignoring them, too.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  These things are never so simple. If a country pulls this sort of thing too often, then negotiations with other nations (especially the one whose treaty you pulled out of) will necessarily be much less willing to negotiate new treaties with them. Treaties are more than just trade, they also signify a strong relationship between nations because the nations who negotiate treaties are signalling that they are willing to cooperate in a constructive fashion with that other nation, and that they want to maintain a peaceful relationship with the other nation. It is far, far better never to sign up to a treaty that is "bad" (normally a power imbalance) than it is to sign up to one, and then pull out of it.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    Well hopefully people notice that the narcotics treaties really just damage poorer countries and don't end up "fighting drugs" anyways. It's sad to see these made up "crimes" of drug selling and money "laundering", as they do suck up budgets, efforts, and lives in third world countries. One might be cubical enough to think e.g. the US loves this as a way to keep, say, Central America, under control.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      I'm not saying they are good, only that it's better never to sign a treaty like this in the first place.
      - thaumasiotes 11y ago
        You can't retroactively have not signed a treaty, though. Your analysis doesn't address the question of "OK, we're in a bad spot, what do we do?", which is the question facing parties to the Convention.
        chris_wot 11y ago
        Yup, diabolical isn't it? There are two choices, break the contract and risk the consequences, or live with the bad treaty.

https://www.civilized.life/despite-treaties-justin-trudeau-could-go-ahead-with-legalization-1543162197.html https://www.civilized.life/despite-treaties-justin-trudeau-c...

MichaelGG 11y ago

So basically a country can pull out of a bad treaty and all they're going to get is some strongly worded letters? Hopefully once Canada and others defy these terrible agreements, poorer countries will realise they have a lot to gain by ignoring them, too.

chris_wot 11y ago
These things are never so simple. If a country pulls this sort of thing too often, then negotiations with other nations (especially the one whose treaty you pulled out of) will necessarily be much less willing to negotiate new treaties with them. Treaties are more than just trade, they also signify a strong relationship between nations because the nations who negotiate treaties are signalling that they are willing to cooperate in a constructive fashion with that other nation, and that they want to maintain a peaceful relationship with the other nation. It is far, far better never to sign up to a treaty that is "bad" (normally a power imbalance) than it is to sign up to one, and then pull out of it.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Well hopefully people notice that the narcotics treaties really just damage poorer countries and don't end up "fighting drugs" anyways. It's sad to see these made up "crimes" of drug selling and money "laundering", as they do suck up budgets, efforts, and lives in third world countries. One might be cubical enough to think e.g. the US loves this as a way to keep, say, Central America, under control.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    I'm not saying they are good, only that it's better never to sign a treaty like this in the first place.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      You can't retroactively have not signed a treaty, though. Your analysis doesn't address the question of "OK, we're in a bad spot, what do we do?", which is the question facing parties to the Convention.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        Yup, diabolical isn't it? There are two choices, break the contract and risk the consequences, or live with the bad treaty.