3 ms·
Ah, I see. You're going to derive a system contrary to Westphalian states from first principles in an effort to show why it's unjust that someone who hacks comp
by ubernostrum 9y ago
Ah, I see. You're going to derive a system contrary to Westphalian states from first principles in an effort to show why it's unjust that someone who hacks computers in Country A from Country B can be arrested and prosecuted by Country B, since the entire notion of state sovereignty is flawed!
Let me know when your treatise on this is finished.
- gego 9y agoDon't attack, just verify. The system is in place (hint: high seas), the states, especially those not in a state of denial of the applicability of international law, have to offer definitions for their regulations, especially those in Roman law countries, where the first section is always definitions... not doing so allows them to be challenged by other states. In other news the kind of system you think is used is exactly why there ARE international treaties... to avoid those situations. But perhaps you are right and we should have more cases based upon the Pinnochet precedent... e.g. Int. extradition of US border officials looking into protected communication a british lawyer takes to his client in the us - something that is prohibited and punishable both in civil and criminal law in most of the world?!