3 ms·

The question "Do other countries have jurisdiction in X?" is "no" for all countries X. I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the quest

The question "Do other countries have jurisdiction in X?" is "no" for all countries X. I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the question as less pertinent than it is?

willis936 6y ago
Is it? That is not a very generous interpretation. I am restating how I see the topic. If you think I have misinterpreted it then feel free to correct.
- didntkillself 6y ago
  My opinion is that you've misinterpreted and misstated. The way you've framed it, the question does not use the word "jurisdiction" in a consistent manner with its definition or practice and does not address operative elements of the international legal system. The framing of the question also is also not on topic: the question about the legal basis of the challenge (all the way at the top of the thread) is a general one, and your framing here hyperfocuses on non-operative concepts ("juristiction") and a single country ("China"). Not only have you framed the wrong question in my opinion, but the question is rhetorical, and then you also bother to provide an answer. In summary I'd say your comment is not relevant to discussion about legal basis of the challenge. It contributes to a different topic not being discussed: "What is your personal feeling about China?" to which you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China."
  - willis936 6y ago
    >you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China” How can what I said be interpreted as a “Boo China”? You could try to apply local laws in any superpower and be ignored. Just because I didn’t needlessly maximize generalization at the cost of context doesn’t mean I’m singling out countries.
    - didntkillself 6y ago
      Perhaps another HN'er could explain it to you more clearly? Thanks for the insights and have a wonderful holiday season.

3 ms·

The question "Do other countries have jurisdiction in X?" is "no" for all countries X. I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the quest

by didntkillself 6y ago

The question "Do other countries have jurisdiction in X?" is "no" for all countries X. I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the question as less pertinent than it is?

willis936 6y ago
Is it? That is not a very generous interpretation. I am restating how I see the topic. If you think I have misinterpreted it then feel free to correct.
- didntkillself 6y ago
  My opinion is that you've misinterpreted and misstated. The way you've framed it, the question does not use the word "jurisdiction" in a consistent manner with its definition or practice and does not address operative elements of the international legal system. The framing of the question also is also not on topic: the question about the legal basis of the challenge (all the way at the top of the thread) is a general one, and your framing here hyperfocuses on non-operative concepts ("juristiction") and a single country ("China"). Not only have you framed the wrong question in my opinion, but the question is rhetorical, and then you also bother to provide an answer. In summary I'd say your comment is not relevant to discussion about legal basis of the challenge. It contributes to a different topic not being discussed: "What is your personal feeling about China?" to which you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China."
  - willis936 6y ago
    >you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China” How can what I said be interpreted as a “Boo China”? You could try to apply local laws in any superpower and be ignored. Just because I didn’t needlessly maximize generalization at the cost of context doesn’t mean I’m singling out countries.
    - didntkillself 6y ago
      Perhaps another HN'er could explain it to you more clearly? Thanks for the insights and have a wonderful holiday season.