6 ms·

It’s a little disturbing seeing the complete lack of historical understanding in the comments here. Yeah, international law isn’t perfect and certainly wasn’t p

It’s a little disturbing seeing the complete lack of historical understanding in the comments here. Yeah, international law isn’t perfect and certainly wasn’t perfectly followed. But the U.S., and most other countries, did heavily constrain themselves by it, primarily for their own good. Some of this is clearly evident from the fact that many of the actions the U.S. has taken, such as kidnapping Maduro, doesn’t really help the U.S. at all, or plans on taking, such as annexing Greenland, will end up being a massive net negative.

SanjayMehta 9mo ago
The UN is a joke. The security council consists of the five states which happened to be the winning countries post 1945. Africa is not represented. India is not represented. South America is not represented. But we have the UK, which at that time included its "empire," down to two islands today. And then someone came up with "rules based order" to replace international law. What rules? What order? I have no respect for Trump, but give him credit for not being a complete hypocrite like his predecessors.
- disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
  I don't really disagree with you in principle, but at least the notion of a rules based international order (no matter how hypocritical it was) was a good thing. We SHOULD all try to be better and not just focus on our own narrow self interests. I think that the UN has been pretty crap (because of the security council and hypocrisy), but like a lot of unsatisfying compromises, we'll miss it when it's gone.
  - SanjayMehta 9mo ago
    The rules based order, as endlessly parroted out by mostly European and USAian talking heads, is meaningless. There's international law, in the form of treaties, as ratified by groups of countries.
    - disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
      > The rules based order, as endlessly parroted out by mostly European and USAian talking heads, is meaningless. It was never meaningless. It was rather like the rights enumerated in the US bill of rights back before the Civil War. Aspirational, rarely enforced but something that (some) people some of the time tried to live up to.
      - SanjayMehta 9mo ago
        I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. Maybe it was valid rhetoric then, but since 2011 or so it's been linked in many countries with arbitrary policies made up in part by NGOs and think tanks. One Indian economist has pointed out the circular nature of these "rules" - a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules, IMF et al adopt it and then use that to decline or foreclose on poorer country loans. International law and ratified treaties never come into the picture which is why this term "rules based order" is used: "we make the rules and will order you around." (One of the reasons why the Chinese BRI is so successful is because the Chinese are much more clear in the transaction: resources for infrastructure. No silly ESG and climate rules.)
        disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
        > I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. I'm reasonably sure that it came from a US partisan split, where the Republicans were claiming to be an empire, while the Democrats wanted to be a "reality based community". That being said, the ideas behind it are much, much older. > a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules I don't understand why a hedge fund would do this. Certainly a bunch of asset managers cared about ESG when it helped them win new business but that's all. > IMF et al adopt it and then use that to decline or foreclose on poorer country loans. The IMF is basically a disaster, has it ever been successful? > (One of the reasons why the Chinese BRI is so successful is because the Chinese are much more clear in the transaction: resources for infrastructure. No silly ESG and climate rules.) I mean that's all fine till they forclose on the loans and you end up with Treaty ports/foreign economic zones in your country.
_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
The Constitution of the United States of America enshrines that international law IS United States law. And in the Treaty of the Danish West Indies the US will "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-39-Pg1706.pdf#page=1 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-3... This is an end to the United States Executive branch considering the Constitution binding. Article 6 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/
- goldforever 9mo ago
  [dead]
goldforever 9mo ago
[dead]

SanjayMehta 9mo ago

The UN is a joke. The security council consists of the five states which happened to be the winning countries post 1945. Africa is not represented. India is not represented. South America is not represented. But we have the UK, which at that time included its "empire," down to two islands today. And then someone came up with "rules based order" to replace international law. What rules? What order? I have no respect for Trump, but give him credit for not being a complete hypocrite like his predecessors.

disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
I don't really disagree with you in principle, but at least the notion of a rules based international order (no matter how hypocritical it was) was a good thing. We SHOULD all try to be better and not just focus on our own narrow self interests. I think that the UN has been pretty crap (because of the security council and hypocrisy), but like a lot of unsatisfying compromises, we'll miss it when it's gone.
- SanjayMehta 9mo ago
  The rules based order, as endlessly parroted out by mostly European and USAian talking heads, is meaningless. There's international law, in the form of treaties, as ratified by groups of countries.
  - disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
    > The rules based order, as endlessly parroted out by mostly European and USAian talking heads, is meaningless. It was never meaningless. It was rather like the rights enumerated in the US bill of rights back before the Civil War. Aspirational, rarely enforced but something that (some) people some of the time tried to live up to.
    - SanjayMehta 9mo ago
      I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. Maybe it was valid rhetoric then, but since 2011 or so it's been linked in many countries with arbitrary policies made up in part by NGOs and think tanks. One Indian economist has pointed out the circular nature of these "rules" - a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules, IMF et al adopt it and then use that to decline or foreclose on poorer country loans. International law and ratified treaties never come into the picture which is why this term "rules based order" is used: "we make the rules and will order you around." (One of the reasons why the Chinese BRI is so successful is because the Chinese are much more clear in the transaction: resources for infrastructure. No silly ESG and climate rules.)
      - disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
        > I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. I'm reasonably sure that it came from a US partisan split, where the Republicans were claiming to be an empire, while the Democrats wanted to be a "reality based community". That being said, the ideas behind it are much, much older. > a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules I don't understand why a hedge fund would do this. Certainly a bunch of asset managers cared about ESG when it helped them win new business but that's all. > IMF et al adopt it and then use that to decline or foreclose on poorer country loans. The IMF is basically a disaster, has it ever been successful? > (One of the reasons why the Chinese BRI is so successful is because the Chinese are much more clear in the transaction: resources for infrastructure. No silly ESG and climate rules.) I mean that's all fine till they forclose on the loans and you end up with Treaty ports/foreign economic zones in your country.

_DeadFred_ 9mo ago

The Constitution of the United States of America enshrines that international law IS United States law. And in the Treaty of the Danish West Indies the US will "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-39-Pg1706.pdf#page=1 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-39/pdf/STATUTE-3... This is an end to the United States Executive branch considering the Constitution binding. Article 6 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/

goldforever 9mo ago
[dead]

goldforever 9mo ago

[dead]