3 ms·
sounds so logical. but i dont think it works that way, in NL at least. international agreements are considered legally binding, just like laws are or perhaps t
by timwaagh 5y ago
sounds so logical. but i dont think it works that way, in NL at least. international agreements are considered legally binding, just like laws are or perhaps they even supersede them. the court might therefore hold a company or individual to comply with a treaty. shell's defense may not be valid, i think. still it's a black day for NL. we're still very much a petroleum economy.
- gruez 5y agoWhat "international agreements" are we talking about? The ones for meeting climate targets, or the ones for ISDS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...)?
- timwaagh 5y agoNot (just) those. The Constitution has two articles (93, 94) that say treaties from 'people rights' institutions (like the UN, I guess) are legally binding and supersede national law of there is a conflict.