Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Does international law trump national law?

rated by 0 users
This post has 6 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 69
Points 1,320
jimaustri123 Posted: Tue, Jan 8 2013 8:22 AM

This is just a general question:

Does international law trump national law? If so, doesn't it render the concept of national sovereignty somewhat void?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Tue, Jan 8 2013 10:12 AM

At the moment? I don't think so. International government is a very new thing (besides empire) and it hasn't flexed it's muscles yet.

If things get worse over the coming years, we might expect to see more of it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 69
Points 1,320

It seems New York City has territory in which international law applies and I'm guessing nobody on that territory is bound under U.S. law. I'd say one would have to take preference over the other... on the basis that there are differences. If there weren't differences, then what would be the point in having a seperate 'international territory'?

From wikipedia.org:

"The United Nations Headquarters resides in international territory in New York City, ..."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Tue, Jan 8 2013 7:58 PM

Maybe, not really, does it matter?

The answer is that in the USA that depends on what 9 people in a stone building wearing black dresses say.  If they vote that the USA is subject to some international rule making body then it is.

But more to the point, does it matter.  The USA and really the rest of the world is for the most part lawless.  There are so many rule making and rule enforcing institutions that no individual could possilbe know what laws/rules they are breaking at what time.  And then different rule enforcing people can arbitrarily enforce rules from differnt jurisdictions.  For example the US Government raided Gibson Guitar and claimed they were violating INDIAN (That is not the folks living in the USA prior to Columbus).  There is a book where a man claims that each person in the USA violates 3 felonies per day.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 69
Points 1,320

I hear you, if what you are driving at is that rule of law has become arbitrary. But I disagree that it doesn't matter. Those black dresses pull the political and media strings. So they say one thing and are doing the other. Of course that matters! It matters a great deal. Should be simply throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can do about it? As soon as we think it doesn't matter, we capitulate to their designs. It is the capitulation that is the victory, for them.

The law would never have come into existence if people didn't first imagine they had natural rights i.e. a set of moral principles, which it was essential for people to live by in a complex but free society.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Wed, Jan 9 2013 2:00 AM

jimaustri123:

 If so, doesn't it render the concept of national sovereignty somewhat void?

Indeed. Thankfully, it would seem that nowadays international law trumps national law only when some small country is getting in the way of the big players. But all these precedents are scary.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

No, it never does. But a lot of people like to be internationally bullies.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS