5 ms·
The problem isn't completely innocuous stuff like this: the problem is setting a precedent when it comes to other international disputes, something the other co
by lagadu 10y ago
The problem isn't completely innocuous stuff like this: the problem is setting a precedent when it comes to other international disputes, something the other country can point at once they go to the appropriate supra-national court. Establishing precedents in international scenarios can be pretty risky.
- ghaff 10y agoPretty much. The US and Canada aren't going to go to war over Machias Seal Island [1] for example although there are some (relatively minor) competing interests related to lobstering. But if one side or the other backs down on this, someday there will be an important dispute with a fact pattern that looks a lot like the unimportant one. Keeping a border patrol station and post office open is pretty cheap insurance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoI don't understand how me giving you a gift establishes a precedent for you to unilaterally take my stuff.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- caf 10y agoSo you establish a treaty in which the parcel of land in question is sold for some nominal figure. That wouldn't be establishing a new precedent, such purchases have happened already.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mcv 10y agoHow is this a court-relevant precedent? And for what court exactly? We're talking about giving up land voluntarily because it costs too much. There's plenty of precedent for countries giving up land in various ways.