5 ms·
Probably. It is provocative but not entirely inaccurate.
by eximius 9y ago
Probably. It is provocative but not entirely inaccurate.
- maxerickson 9y agoInternational treaties typically have provisions for unilateral withdrawal. They don't subordinate countries. Given a withdrawal provision, they require ongoing commitment to mean anything.
- cat199 9y ago> They don't subordinate countries. aaand the people within them? last I checked I cant make my country unilaterally withdraw from a treaty because I don't like being prosecuted by a foreign corporation via a proxy-kangaroo court..
- maxerickson 9y agoThat's really not all that different than any other law you might disagree with, without broad support you aren't going to get your way. In practice you can expect the disputes to be narrow and not matter to most people...
- akvadrako 9y agoThis is some weird logic. A treaty is a kind of voluntary subordination and going into it with the plan to leaving it once it's rules are enforced is some strange politics. It's a lot easier to change the rules before you join or not join at all.
- maxerickson 9y agoThat's not the logic I'm putting forth. People making noise about sovereignty frame things in terms of the treaty being an absolute, I'm just pointing out that it isn't an absolute and that the framing is silly. I mean, I agree it is absurd to have to point out that countries will only stay party to treaties that are of some net benefit, but there you go.
- akvadrako 9y agoBut the discussion is about if it’s a net benefit. It’s much better to decide that before joining. If the us joined tpp it would get those negatives. We already know that. If those aren’t acceptable they shouldn’t join.