4 ms·

Sure, like the US government can break any other international contract they signed. This just would not help with further trust. There is something called inte

Sure, like the US government can break any other international contract they signed. This just would not help with further trust. There is something called international law, despite there is no world government. But states are still subject to rules, or else they will isolate themself.

SllX 3y ago
I think the word “law” is a little misleading in this case: International law is more like international diplomacy LARPing as law. That said, never found a better word for it, so maybe it’s correct.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  Per the constitution treaties are binding with the same force as federal law.
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> I think the word “law” is a little misleading in this case: International law is more like international diplomacy LARPing as law. >> That said, never found a better word for it, so maybe it’s correct. > Per the constitution treaties are binding with the force of federal law. 1) I think that's controversial, or at least not so simple. IIRC, there's a question in US law if treaties have domestic force on their own, or must be implemented by "enabling legislation." 2) In any case, the US Constitution can't make "international law" international law, at best it makes a treaty domestic US law.
  - SllX 3y ago
    Yes, but treaties are themselves extraconstitutional in the framework of international diplomacy. They’re agreements between nations, and the US constitution is only binding on us. It gets expressed as law domestically but in truth, it’s closer to a contract but without a court of law to enforce them which is why they get their own word: treaties.
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      The real answer, and the history, lies in the root of the word treaty. It is cognate with the verb "to treat", as in how one handles affairs with another.
krapp 3y ago
Other countries don't work with the US because they trust us, they know perfectly well after Iraq and Snowden and Trump that we're not to be trusted. They work with the US because we're the world's last superpower, have overwhelming military force and enough nukes to crack the world open several times over. We're Darth Vader, the world is Cloud City, and the deal is whatever we say it is, and if we alter it, pray we don't alter it further.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Russia still has lots of nukes, too. Probably even more than you. They still discovered the international backslash, after blatantly breaking international law by invading ukraine.
  - krapp 3y ago
    What have they discovered? As far as I know, Russia is still invading Ukraine, they haven't surrendered or retreated. They've discovered that having nukes means you can get away with whatever you like, and suffer little more than a slap on the wrist from the international community. Which is what the US also knows. And North Korea. And China, whenever it decides to roll over Taiwan. Nuclear weapons mean the rules don't apply to you.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      " and suffer little more than a slap on the wrist from the international community." Russia is a international pariah now, with no more friends and the only states doing buisness with them are doing so, because russia is weak and without choice, so you can have favorable terms with them. Even china openly condemned russias aggression. They still do buisness with russia of course, but to very good conditions. And china just did a important states meeting for central asian states: https://thediplomat.com/2023/05/in-xian-chinas-xi-calls-for-a-shared-future-with-central-asia/ https://thediplomat.com/2023/05/in-xian-chinas-xi-calls-for-... Basically all former soviet states and russia was not invited or mentioned at all. China takes what russia cannot hold anymore - and russia still has to smile and dares no criticism, because without china - they would be done economically. China could not have done this prior the invasion. And if china would try to invade Taiwan - then the military outcome is far from settled and china tries hard to avoid the political costs of a invasion. They rather want to strongarm taiwan into a forced "voluntarily" unification. Otherwise they would have invaded long ago.

SllX 3y ago

I think the word “law” is a little misleading in this case: International law is more like international diplomacy LARPing as law. That said, never found a better word for it, so maybe it’s correct.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago
Per the constitution treaties are binding with the same force as federal law.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> I think the word “law” is a little misleading in this case: International law is more like international diplomacy LARPing as law. >> That said, never found a better word for it, so maybe it’s correct. > Per the constitution treaties are binding with the force of federal law. 1) I think that's controversial, or at least not so simple. IIRC, there's a question in US law if treaties have domestic force on their own, or must be implemented by "enabling legislation." 2) In any case, the US Constitution can't make "international law" international law, at best it makes a treaty domestic US law.
- SllX 3y ago
  Yes, but treaties are themselves extraconstitutional in the framework of international diplomacy. They’re agreements between nations, and the US constitution is only binding on us. It gets expressed as law domestically but in truth, it’s closer to a contract but without a court of law to enforce them which is why they get their own word: treaties.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    The real answer, and the history, lies in the root of the word treaty. It is cognate with the verb "to treat", as in how one handles affairs with another.

krapp 3y ago

Other countries don't work with the US because they trust us, they know perfectly well after Iraq and Snowden and Trump that we're not to be trusted. They work with the US because we're the world's last superpower, have overwhelming military force and enough nukes to crack the world open several times over. We're Darth Vader, the world is Cloud City, and the deal is whatever we say it is, and if we alter it, pray we don't alter it further.

hutzlibu 3y ago
Russia still has lots of nukes, too. Probably even more than you. They still discovered the international backslash, after blatantly breaking international law by invading ukraine.
- krapp 3y ago
  What have they discovered? As far as I know, Russia is still invading Ukraine, they haven't surrendered or retreated. They've discovered that having nukes means you can get away with whatever you like, and suffer little more than a slap on the wrist from the international community. Which is what the US also knows. And North Korea. And China, whenever it decides to roll over Taiwan. Nuclear weapons mean the rules don't apply to you.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    " and suffer little more than a slap on the wrist from the international community." Russia is a international pariah now, with no more friends and the only states doing buisness with them are doing so, because russia is weak and without choice, so you can have favorable terms with them. Even china openly condemned russias aggression. They still do buisness with russia of course, but to very good conditions. And china just did a important states meeting for central asian states: https://thediplomat.com/2023/05/in-xian-chinas-xi-calls-for-a-shared-future-with-central-asia/ https://thediplomat.com/2023/05/in-xian-chinas-xi-calls-for-... Basically all former soviet states and russia was not invited or mentioned at all. China takes what russia cannot hold anymore - and russia still has to smile and dares no criticism, because without china - they would be done economically. China could not have done this prior the invasion. And if china would try to invade Taiwan - then the military outcome is far from settled and china tries hard to avoid the political costs of a invasion. They rather want to strongarm taiwan into a forced "voluntarily" unification. Otherwise they would have invaded long ago.