4 ms·
> The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border
by bawolff 2y ago
> The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.
While i hate this gulf of america bullshit, i'm not sure i agree this argument is so sound. I don't think there is any rule of international law requiring countries to refer to other country's territory by the preferred name of the state that has soverignty over that territory. Maybe if you take it as an implicit threat of annexation or claim of soverignty, that would be a violation of the prohibition of acquiring territory by force, but that seems a bit of a stretch at the present juncture. [Ianal].
Basically i think there is a big difference between saying someone is acting illogically and someone is acting illegally.
- alabastervlog 2y agoA better argument is that the president doesn’t determine the common, accepted name of bodies of water in English. Even American English. And especially ones outside US borders. The name’s the same as it was.
- bawolff 2y agoBe that as it may, from the mexico lawsuit stand point, is there any rule of law being violated by refering to something by the wrong name? It doesn't really matter if the president lacks the authority to change the de jure name or what the de facto name is, if google has no obligation to use the correct names for things.
- alabastervlog 2y agoI do also, separately, think the lawsuit seems odd. But I guess when confronted with absurdity… file absurd lawsuits? I dunno, speaking of maps, we’re in the part that reads “here be dragons”.
- AStonesThrow 2y ago> we’re in the part that reads “here be dragons”. Well at least I've been learning How To Train [My] Dragon... so we got this!