4 ms·

The fact that you think a "formal international treaty" means anything, tells us that you're not ready. States will do whatever states CAN do. Treaties mean n

The fact that you think a "formal international treaty" means anything, tells us that you're not ready. States will do whatever states CAN do. Treaties mean nothing by themselves, especially in this context. (side note: nearly all treaties are both formal and international by default)

walterbell 4y ago
> States will do whatever states CAN do. Of course. But there's a big difference between doing covertly and doing in daylight with an office. Should foreign countries open US "Corporate Intellectual Property Donation" physical offices? Treaties set a floor on behavior. For those who claim laws don't matter, remember that contracts and all global supply chains are based on laws of trade and finance. No law = no economy = war until agreement and law is re-established.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Treaties and international law in general are only relevant for weak states. Powerful states ignore any negative decision against them - especially the most powerful. This is even official in some cases. For example, the USA does not recognize any authority of the the International Criminal Court (neither do China, Russia and a number of other big states), but that doesn't stop them from occasionally using it against smaller nations. You can look for a long time, but you'll never find an example of a superpower/empire, or a close ally of one, submitting to any kind of international judgment against it, criminal or in a trade dispute. At most, they may accept a negative ruling to a case they brought against someone else.
  - walterbell 4y ago
    > You can look for a long time, but you'll never find an example of a superpower/empire, or a close ally of one, submitting to any kind of international judgment against it, criminal or in a trade dispute. At most, they may accept a negative ruling to a case they brought against someone else. Since 2020, China's Huawei has been subject to semiconductor supply chain restrictions which have been enforced by multiple countries. This has materially impacted Huawei consumer smartphone revenues. But in the long term, such restrictions are likely to accelerate technical self-sufficiency, https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/22/china_smic_7nm_chips/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/22/china_smic_7nm_chips/
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      They are enforced by other countries - it wasn't the Chinese themselves who decided to stop doing something because an international court said so - that is my point. This would be equivalent to a court imposing a fine on you, and your neighbors taking your things in the amount of the fine (instead of the state taking it, or you going to pay).
      - walterbell 4y ago
        Self vs. other enforcement is less important than consequences, which are the same in both situations. If a country has the opportunity to negotiate the terms of trade, that is clearly preferable to terms being imposed unilaterally by others. Yes, countries can break agreements, but good agreements provide benefits to all parties, such that breaking an agreement results in reciprocal loss of benefits. There are always edge cases, but by definition, not everything is an edge case and there are countless routine, negotiated agreements which benefit everyone and are happily followed.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > For example, the USA does not recognize any authority of the the International Criminal Court This is not true. The USA is not a party to the Rome Statute and asserts that the conditions which would otherwise subject its citizens to ICC jurisdiction categorically do not exist, and has authorized unlimited measures should the ICC disagree with the last point, but does not dispute the authority of the ICC. > You can look for a long time, but you’ll never find an example of a superpower/empire, or a close ally of one, submitting to any kind of international judgment against it, criminal or in a trade dispute. Well, states are not subjects of criminal law, so the criminal part is trivially true. As for trade disputes, the US has complied with numerous adverse decisions in WTO proceedings.
    - bluesign 4y ago
      You both are saying the same thing, according to US; ICC has no authority over US, but on other countries.
      - tristor 4y ago
        No, they’re not. The ICC has no authority over ANY state, it has authority over people who are citizens of many states, but not citizens of the US, because the US has a functioning justice system that responds to the things the ICC is focused on. Because of this, there is no need to indict a US citizen in the ICC, you can do it in the US justice system, which is why the US points out that their citizens do not need to be subjected to the ICC.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > because the US has a functioning justice system that responds to the things the ICC is focused on. Well, that’s the position of US law. There are certainly cases one might point to and make the argument that the US domestic system does not always effectively deal with US war crimes and the crime of aggression.
        tristor 4y ago

walterbell 4y ago

> States will do whatever states CAN do. Of course. But there's a big difference between doing covertly and doing in daylight with an office. Should foreign countries open US "Corporate Intellectual Property Donation" physical offices? Treaties set a floor on behavior. For those who claim laws don't matter, remember that contracts and all global supply chains are based on laws of trade and finance. No law = no economy = war until agreement and law is re-established.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Treaties and international law in general are only relevant for weak states. Powerful states ignore any negative decision against them - especially the most powerful. This is even official in some cases. For example, the USA does not recognize any authority of the the International Criminal Court (neither do China, Russia and a number of other big states), but that doesn't stop them from occasionally using it against smaller nations. You can look for a long time, but you'll never find an example of a superpower/empire, or a close ally of one, submitting to any kind of international judgment against it, criminal or in a trade dispute. At most, they may accept a negative ruling to a case they brought against someone else.
- walterbell 4y ago
  > You can look for a long time, but you'll never find an example of a superpower/empire, or a close ally of one, submitting to any kind of international judgment against it, criminal or in a trade dispute. At most, they may accept a negative ruling to a case they brought against someone else. Since 2020, China's Huawei has been subject to semiconductor supply chain restrictions which have been enforced by multiple countries. This has materially impacted Huawei consumer smartphone revenues. But in the long term, such restrictions are likely to accelerate technical self-sufficiency, https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/22/china_smic_7nm_chips/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/22/china_smic_7nm_chips/
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    They are enforced by other countries - it wasn't the Chinese themselves who decided to stop doing something because an international court said so - that is my point. This would be equivalent to a court imposing a fine on you, and your neighbors taking your things in the amount of the fine (instead of the state taking it, or you going to pay).
    - walterbell 4y ago
      Self vs. other enforcement is less important than consequences, which are the same in both situations. If a country has the opportunity to negotiate the terms of trade, that is clearly preferable to terms being imposed unilaterally by others. Yes, countries can break agreements, but good agreements provide benefits to all parties, such that breaking an agreement results in reciprocal loss of benefits. There are always edge cases, but by definition, not everything is an edge case and there are countless routine, negotiated agreements which benefit everyone and are happily followed.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > For example, the USA does not recognize any authority of the the International Criminal Court This is not true. The USA is not a party to the Rome Statute and asserts that the conditions which would otherwise subject its citizens to ICC jurisdiction categorically do not exist, and has authorized unlimited measures should the ICC disagree with the last point, but does not dispute the authority of the ICC. > You can look for a long time, but you’ll never find an example of a superpower/empire, or a close ally of one, submitting to any kind of international judgment against it, criminal or in a trade dispute. Well, states are not subjects of criminal law, so the criminal part is trivially true. As for trade disputes, the US has complied with numerous adverse decisions in WTO proceedings.
  - bluesign 4y ago
    You both are saying the same thing, according to US; ICC has no authority over US, but on other countries.
    - tristor 4y ago
      No, they’re not. The ICC has no authority over ANY state, it has authority over people who are citizens of many states, but not citizens of the US, because the US has a functioning justice system that responds to the things the ICC is focused on. Because of this, there is no need to indict a US citizen in the ICC, you can do it in the US justice system, which is why the US points out that their citizens do not need to be subjected to the ICC.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > because the US has a functioning justice system that responds to the things the ICC is focused on. Well, that’s the position of US law. There are certainly cases one might point to and make the argument that the US domestic system does not always effectively deal with US war crimes and the crime of aggression.
        tristor 4y ago