5 ms·

"if we impose our values on everyone" When a country signs a treaty, it is agreeing to something, presumably because it sees some benefit in it. It is entering

"if we impose our values on everyone" When a country signs a treaty, it is agreeing to something, presumably because it sees some benefit in it. It is entering into a kind of contract, from which there are presumably multiple benefits to all participants. Nothing is being imposed on anyone. It is being freely chosen by the governments that participate.

blagie 5y ago
If a country signs a treaty while a US gunship is sitting in it's port, it sees a clear benefit of not having a "regime change" or a war. If a Nigerian politician signs a treaty while receiving bribes or election support from a Western or Chinese oil company, that doesn't mean "a country" sees a benefit. If a country signs a treaty at a risk of being ostracized by the world, it's taking the lesser of two evils. And if you take a child bride from a war zone, it's a free exchange, with both sides seeing benefit. However, that doesn't mean it's fair or non-coercive. Power imbalances can allow for pretty nasty, unfair deals. I have a comment elsewhere in this thread with examples, both modern and going back 200 years.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Of course, "the western IP regime" didn't become ubiquitous because of these kinds of coercive practices even if some of them have happened historically. They happened because both sides saw a benefit. Of course, even absent malicious coercion, power imbalances can remain, but invoking "fairness" implies some objective (or otherwise agreeable) standard which patently doesn't exist. Just say you wish Russia (or whomever) had more negotiating power if that's what you mean. The closest we can get to an objective standard is: each side can freely (i.e., absent malicious coercion) choose for themselves.
sschueller 5y ago
Really? Every time I want to open a bank account in Switzerland I am asked if I am an American citizen. I am not asked if I am a citizen of another country or any other specific place. I am only asked if I am an American citizen. Are you asked if you are Swiss citizen when you open a bank account in America? Per FATCA treaty you should be but that isn't happening because the mighty power the US holds over anyone dealing with USD. If a US bank doesn't share its Swiss tax cheats nothing happens. If a Swiss bank hides them they get taken to the cleaners and can loose to do business with USD which is a death blow for any bank.
politelemon 5y ago
> Nothing is being imposed on anyone. It is being freely chosen by the governments that participate. Not the case at all. Treaties are sometimes compromises and in sometimes coercion under the diplomatic guise of choice. Otherwise there would be no need for a treaty and nations could choose to enforce others' values of their own free will.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Not the case at all. Treaties are sometimes ... coercion Exceptions don't refute the general case. > Otherwise there would be no need for a treaty and nations could choose to enforce others' values of their own free will. The point of a trade treaty is for each party to formally affirm that they will abide by the other's conditions. This is necessary irrespective of coercion.
fao_ 5y ago
Oh, they did? Let's look at how America prevented Africa from manufacturing HIV treatments """ In 1997, South Africa tried one tack. It passed a law to allow the importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in another nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is called "parallel importation," and it is generally permitted under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the European Union. However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association characterized it, "The U.S. government pressured South Africa ... not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports." 3 Through the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the law — and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed South Africa for possible trade sanctions. That same year, more than forty pharmaceutical companies began proceedings in the South African courts to challenge the government's actions. The United States was then joined by other governments from the EU. Their claim, and the claim of the pharmaceutical companies, was that South Africa was violating its obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular kind of patent — pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa. We should place the intervention by the United States in context. No doubt patents are not the most important reason that Africans don't have access to drugs. Poverty and the total absence of an effective health care infrastructure matter more. But whether patents are the most important reason or not, the price of drugs has an effect on their demand, and patents affect price. And so, whether massive or mar- ginal, there was an effect from our government's intervention to stop the flow of medications into Africa. By stopping the flow of HIV treatment into Africa, the United States government was not saving drugs for United States citizens. This is not like wheat (if they eat it, we can't); instead, the flow that the United States intervened to stop was, in effect, a flow of knowledge: information about how to take chemicals that exist within Africa, and turn those chemicals into drugs that would save 15 to 30 million lives. """ https://archive.org/stream/free_culture/freeculture_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/free_culture/freeculture_djvu.txt
beaconstudios 5y ago
Consensual transactions can still be coercive. See Hollywood "casting couch" practices as an example.
SomeHacker44 5y ago
Like the treaty where the US guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine against Russia in exchange for denuclearization? Hm.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  If it didn't get approved by the US Senate (and, hint hint, the Budapest Memorandum didn't) then the treaty is not binding on the US. Other countries need to stop taking anything the US says or promises in international relations seriously until it goes through the senate. And admittedly, the US needs to stop making promises until it's sure it has the needed votes in the senate first.
- zajio1am 5y ago
  AFAIK it was not international treaty, just political agreement not ratified by signing countries.
- pfisherman 5y ago
  You mean the treaty where Russia promised not to invade Ukraine?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
verisimi 5y ago
Are you an individual or a country though? Did you sign a contract to be aligned with whatever the individuals running your country decide that you should do?
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
More democratic nations ought to have the self-respect to repudiate treaties their fathers ratified that they no longer like.

blagie 5y ago

If a country signs a treaty while a US gunship is sitting in it's port, it sees a clear benefit of not having a "regime change" or a war. If a Nigerian politician signs a treaty while receiving bribes or election support from a Western or Chinese oil company, that doesn't mean "a country" sees a benefit. If a country signs a treaty at a risk of being ostracized by the world, it's taking the lesser of two evils. And if you take a child bride from a war zone, it's a free exchange, with both sides seeing benefit. However, that doesn't mean it's fair or non-coercive. Power imbalances can allow for pretty nasty, unfair deals. I have a comment elsewhere in this thread with examples, both modern and going back 200 years.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Of course, "the western IP regime" didn't become ubiquitous because of these kinds of coercive practices even if some of them have happened historically. They happened because both sides saw a benefit. Of course, even absent malicious coercion, power imbalances can remain, but invoking "fairness" implies some objective (or otherwise agreeable) standard which patently doesn't exist. Just say you wish Russia (or whomever) had more negotiating power if that's what you mean. The closest we can get to an objective standard is: each side can freely (i.e., absent malicious coercion) choose for themselves.

sschueller 5y ago

Really? Every time I want to open a bank account in Switzerland I am asked if I am an American citizen. I am not asked if I am a citizen of another country or any other specific place. I am only asked if I am an American citizen. Are you asked if you are Swiss citizen when you open a bank account in America? Per FATCA treaty you should be but that isn't happening because the mighty power the US holds over anyone dealing with USD. If a US bank doesn't share its Swiss tax cheats nothing happens. If a Swiss bank hides them they get taken to the cleaners and can loose to do business with USD which is a death blow for any bank.

politelemon 5y ago

> Nothing is being imposed on anyone. It is being freely chosen by the governments that participate. Not the case at all. Treaties are sometimes compromises and in sometimes coercion under the diplomatic guise of choice. Otherwise there would be no need for a treaty and nations could choose to enforce others' values of their own free will.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Not the case at all. Treaties are sometimes ... coercion Exceptions don't refute the general case. > Otherwise there would be no need for a treaty and nations could choose to enforce others' values of their own free will. The point of a trade treaty is for each party to formally affirm that they will abide by the other's conditions. This is necessary irrespective of coercion.

fao_ 5y ago

Oh, they did? Let's look at how America prevented Africa from manufacturing HIV treatments """ In 1997, South Africa tried one tack. It passed a law to allow the importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in another nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is called "parallel importation," and it is generally permitted under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the European Union. However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association characterized it, "The U.S. government pressured South Africa ... not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports." 3 Through the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the law — and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed South Africa for possible trade sanctions. That same year, more than forty pharmaceutical companies began proceedings in the South African courts to challenge the government's actions. The United States was then joined by other governments from the EU. Their claim, and the claim of the pharmaceutical companies, was that South Africa was violating its obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular kind of patent — pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa. We should place the intervention by the United States in context. No doubt patents are not the most important reason that Africans don't have access to drugs. Poverty and the total absence of an effective health care infrastructure matter more. But whether patents are the most important reason or not, the price of drugs has an effect on their demand, and patents affect price. And so, whether massive or mar- ginal, there was an effect from our government's intervention to stop the flow of medications into Africa. By stopping the flow of HIV treatment into Africa, the United States government was not saving drugs for United States citizens. This is not like wheat (if they eat it, we can't); instead, the flow that the United States intervened to stop was, in effect, a flow of knowledge: information about how to take chemicals that exist within Africa, and turn those chemicals into drugs that would save 15 to 30 million lives. """ https://archive.org/stream/free_culture/freeculture_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/free_culture/freeculture_djvu.txt

beaconstudios 5y ago

Consensual transactions can still be coercive. See Hollywood "casting couch" practices as an example.

SomeHacker44 5y ago

Like the treaty where the US guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine against Russia in exchange for denuclearization? Hm.

HideousKojima 5y ago
If it didn't get approved by the US Senate (and, hint hint, the Budapest Memorandum didn't) then the treaty is not binding on the US. Other countries need to stop taking anything the US says or promises in international relations seriously until it goes through the senate. And admittedly, the US needs to stop making promises until it's sure it has the needed votes in the senate first.
zajio1am 5y ago
AFAIK it was not international treaty, just political agreement not ratified by signing countries.
pfisherman 5y ago
You mean the treaty where Russia promised not to invade Ukraine?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

verisimi 5y ago

Are you an individual or a country though? Did you sign a contract to be aligned with whatever the individuals running your country decide that you should do?

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

More democratic nations ought to have the self-respect to repudiate treaties their fathers ratified that they no longer like.