3 ms·
> "Some legal scholars have argued that ... A paragraph later in the wiki-article you copied from, this is opinion is immediately refuted. Instead the buck sto
by posterboy 8y ago
> "Some legal scholars have argued that ...
A paragraph later in the wiki-article you copied from, this is opinion is immediately refuted. Instead the buck stops at constitutions and the like.
It's a declaration of interests. It is heavily stressing the word law, which is very much not an inherent value, that the term competing interests should be hard to shrug off. I am not going to write a fully fledged critique in a HN comment about this monumental document, but it's always going to be a two edged sword.
For one funny bit see this paragraph:
> Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Which is asymmetric, not to say utterly useless, without provision about where to leave to. I forgot what GP's point was :(
- lugg 8y agoHow is that utterly useless? It's pretty clear the intention is to prevent a) people being prevented from leaving enmasse and b) revoking their passport. This is basic stuff and doesn't work in a vacuum you can safely assume we live on the same planet that happens to have mostly open borders. Regarding the customary international law thing it was not refuted at all. It says that it does not constitute international law for the USA, and does not constitute domestic law for some [citation needed] other countries - likely because of the vague at times wording. The fact some nations dispute it doesn't make it any less customary international law, hell it's kind of the definition otherwise it would just be international law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law Customary is just that, it doesn't have to be upheld but it can be used as a moral guide to defining and shaping other laws.