4 ms·

> "I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes." Isn't this the whole poin

> "I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes." Isn't this the whole point of treaties though? What good is a treaty if member states don't have to change incompatible laws to conform with it? What's the point of, say, signing a human rights treaty, without changing currently compatible laws to fall in line?

rgraham 15y ago
Sounds like these guys wouldn't sign most such treaties. I'm happy to be a good neighbor, but policy should happen as close to the local level as possible. I don't think that is a shocking insight.
dwiel 15y ago
The point of the treaty is to come to an agreement between two governments. If the provisions of the treaty are not legally possible than the treaty is meaningless. For a more extreme example: If the US congress signs a treaty with England which agrees that the US Presidents will no longer have any power in exchange for the English Prime Ministers too also no longer have any power, it doesn't matter because congress didn't have the power to write such laws in the first place.
ColinDabritz 15y ago
Treaties are fine, and they certainly can affect local laws and should if they were made in good faith and are reasonably beneficial to both countries. The problem is that some treaties are not about solving problems but are rather an intentional collusion between the governmental representatives to push unwanted law on one or both countries. That's what I object to. Say two countries have a particular copyright law, say 50 years in one and 60 years in another. So the two representatives, probably both receiving substantial funds from pro-copyright media conglomerates, get together and arrange a treaty that says they will extend copyright to 100 years. Well gee guys, we'll have to change our laws! Both countries missed out on reasonable legislative processes.

rgraham 15y ago

Sounds like these guys wouldn't sign most such treaties. I'm happy to be a good neighbor, but policy should happen as close to the local level as possible. I don't think that is a shocking insight.

dwiel 15y ago

The point of the treaty is to come to an agreement between two governments. If the provisions of the treaty are not legally possible than the treaty is meaningless. For a more extreme example: If the US congress signs a treaty with England which agrees that the US Presidents will no longer have any power in exchange for the English Prime Ministers too also no longer have any power, it doesn't matter because congress didn't have the power to write such laws in the first place.

ColinDabritz 15y ago

Treaties are fine, and they certainly can affect local laws and should if they were made in good faith and are reasonably beneficial to both countries. The problem is that some treaties are not about solving problems but are rather an intentional collusion between the governmental representatives to push unwanted law on one or both countries. That's what I object to. Say two countries have a particular copyright law, say 50 years in one and 60 years in another. So the two representatives, probably both receiving substantial funds from pro-copyright media conglomerates, get together and arrange a treaty that says they will extend copyright to 100 years. Well gee guys, we'll have to change our laws! Both countries missed out on reasonable legislative processes.