Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Even an argument from "common law" is considered weak. An argument from "an innate obligation towards one's fellow man" would likely be seen as laudable but laughable in a US or UK court. Such arguments were certainly useless in and of themselves as a remedy for slavery or race based denial or restriction of civil rights in the US. They required laws and/or amendments to the US constitution.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Dec 31st, 2009 at 01:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This isn't about what flies in court. There are no genuine international courts, excepting perhaps the WTO arbitration process. I'd like for a body of international jurisprudence to come into being, but until and unless it does... well, you work with the international law you have, not the one you'd like.

So it's about political justifications for intervention by the European Union's foreign service in the internal affairs of another country. That is not, and never has been, about laws. So a political justification is both necessary and sufficient - a legal justification is neither.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Dec 31st, 2009 at 02:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series