BF2S Forums Only states are true actors of international law

No, not true.  Corporations and other NGO's have to abide by certain international law and other international agreements, as agreed upon by whatever states those NGOs are incorporated in.

I could go long and boring if you want, but I don't want to do your homework without at least a little more background.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No, not true.  Corporations and other NGO's have to abide by certain international law and other international agreements, as agreed upon by whatever states those NGOs are incorporated in.

I could go long and boring if you want, but I don't want to do your homework without at least a little more background.

go long and boring.  Im missing class right now might as well make up for it.

NGOs and corporations routinely challenge domestic laws that go against international agreements implemented by the WTO and other international organizations.  In some cases the international agreements supercede domestic law.  I'm trying to think of specific examples but my memory is a little hazy (go figure).  I vaguely remember a law referred to in a FTA dealing with pollutants and I believe it was a Mexican company doing business in the US that succesfully argued that it could continue doing business in the US even though it was operating against domestic US environmental law.  The FTA implemented by the WTO allowed for the company to do business because it didn't have the same constraints that US domestic law had.  I wish I could remember the specific case but it's been a while since I've read about these things.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

NGOs and corporations routinely challenge domestic laws that go against international agreements implemented by the WTO and other international organizations.  In some cases the international agreements supercede domestic law.  I'm trying to think of specific examples but my memory is a little hazy (go figure).  I vaguely remember a law referred to in a FTA dealing with pollutants and I believe it was a Mexican company doing business in the US that succesfully argued that it could continue doing business in the US even though it was operating against domestic US environmental law.  The FTA implemented by the WTO allowed for the company to do business because it didn't have the same constraints that US domestic law had.  I wish I could remember the specific case but it's been a while since I've read about these things.

International law doesn't supersede any domestic laws unless they are ratified by the sovereign nation. The nation has to be party to the treaty in order for it to be binding. This is why most of the commercial shipping of the world is flagged in Liberia and Panama, the ship owners are not liable or held to STCW requirements because those nations never ratified the protocols. Now, for those ships to do business within the international boundaries of nations that have ratified the protocols it is an issue.

International laws have no teeth outside of the countries that are party to them and that case you are referring to was ruled incorrectly if it stated that international law superseded US law.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

that case you are referring to was ruled incorrectly if it stated that international law superseded US law.

I guess if you say so Mr. International Trade lawyer.

It is true that the international agreements don't carry any weight to non-signatories (duh!).  Just look at the ICC and US's failure to sign on.

JohnG@lt wrote:

International law doesn't supersede any domestic laws unless they are ratified by the sovereign nation.

See, you agree that international law supercedes domestic law between to signatories of the international law/agreement.

Right, but the US has never ratified a treaty that superseded US laws. International law may add on to what the US does, but the laws have never replaced our own. Why? Because we've written most of the international laws ourselves

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Yes they have (international laws superceding domestic law, even in the case of the US).  And Corporate lawyers and lobbyists have more impact on most international trade agreements and trade law than any official US representative.  And when US Representatives are involved, they are usually reflecting the best interests of the private sector, not the public sector.  The US (and other countries) ratifies international agreements that are in discord with our domestic laws all the time.  I think the thought is that, "yes, we will agree to this stipulation with the hope that it never comes up.  If/when it does we will litigate as forcefully as possible."

I think we're saying the same thing just from different angles. An international law that is adopted via ratification replaces US law yes, but the fact that it was written in an international environment doesn't give it any special status. Once it is adopted it has the same legal basis as if it were written here.

An international law that was written and adopted elsewhere is not legally binding here if we do not sign on to it.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Then why do you keep reiterating what I'm saying?  Do you like to read your own words?  Are you one of those people that has to get the last word in a 'debate' so that you feel you won?

You were reiterating MY words

ghettoperson wrote:

Got an essay due Teddy?

I'd agree with Galt actually.

yuuup

Got my bloody jessup international law moot to prepare for for which I have to write a 9000 word submission...don't have time for this damn essay

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Yes they have (international laws superceding domestic law, even in the case of the US).  And Corporate lawyers and lobbyists have more impact on most international trade agreements and trade law than any official US representative.  And when US Representatives are involved, they are usually reflecting the best interests of the private sector, not the public sector.  The US (and other countries) ratifies international agreements that are in discord with our domestic laws all the time.  I think the thought is that, "yes, we will agree to this stipulation with the hope that it never comes up.  If/when it does we will litigate as forcefully as possible."

I think we're saying the same thing just from different angles. An international law that is adopted via ratification replaces US law yes, but the fact that it was written in an international environment doesn't give it any special status. Once it is adopted it has the same legal basis as if it were written here.

An international law that was written and adopted elsewhere is not legally binding here if we do not sign on to it.

Unless they appeal though?

Drawing a parallel with the UK, we have incorporated the Human Rights Act that requires all legislation to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. If an individual feels as though the state has acted incompatibly with this particular piece of legislation then it may be taken to court and ultimately appealed to the European Court of Justice. In this sense an individual is an actor of international law because he is trying to enforce his rights against international law.

Is it the same system in the US? i.e once the final domestic appeal court has dismissed a case, could the claimant appeal to the institutional court to override an American judge's final say?



I'm thinking also of the role of the EU, UN, NAFTA, etc. As institutions they create a lot of the existing international law but since they can only be enforced upon ratification can you say they specifically are the true actors?

No, because they are toothless and unable to undermine the sovereignty of the nations they represent (Except for the EU I guess since it's evolving into a new country in it's own right).

As far as appeals go, they may be able to go 'over the head' of our own courts but unless we specifically bound ourselves to the rulings of international courts (which I doubt we have outside of the Geneva Convention, and this is questionable) the fines or whatever else wouldn't have any enforcement behind them.

For US citizens, our Supreme Court is the final arbiter in all cases.

JohnG@lt wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I think we're saying the same thing just from different angles. An international law that is adopted via ratification replaces US law yes, but the fact that it was written in an international environment doesn't give it any special status. Once it is adopted it has the same legal basis as if it were written here.

An international law that was written and adopted elsewhere is not legally binding here if we do not sign on to it.

Unless they appeal though?

Drawing a parallel with the UK, we have incorporated the Human Rights Act that requires all legislation to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. If an individual feels as though the state has acted incompatibly with this particular piece of legislation then it may be taken to court and ultimately appealed to the European Court of Justice. In this sense an individual is an actor of international law because he is trying to enforce his rights against international law.

Is it the same system in the US? i.e once the final domestic appeal court has dismissed a case, could the claimant appeal to the institutional court to override an American judge's final say?



I'm thinking also of the role of the EU, UN, NAFTA, etc. As institutions they create a lot of the existing international law but since they can only be enforced upon ratification can you say they specifically are the true actors?

No, because they are toothless and unable to undermine the sovereignty of the nations they represent (Except for the EU I guess since it's evolving into a new country in it's own right).

As far as appeals go, they may be able to go 'over the head' of our own courts but unless we specifically bound ourselves to the rulings of international courts (which I doubt we have outside of the Geneva Convention, and this is questionable) the fines or whatever else wouldn't have any enforcement behind them.

For US citizens, our Supreme Court is the final arbiter in all cases.

I agree buuuut

if a state ratifies an act that requires national legislation to be substantively compatible then they are required to enforce that law. In the particular case I've mentioned involving the Human rights act, Parliament agreed that the final court of appeal would be the European Court of Justice included as a specific clause in the act. If then an individual succeeds in his claim at the final court of appeal and the state changes their law, he/she has been an actor of international law against a state. lol pretty confusing

JohnG@lt wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

that case you are referring to was ruled incorrectly if it stated that international law superseded US law.

I guess if you say so Mr. International Trade lawyer.

It is true that the international agreements don't carry any weight to non-signatories (duh!).  Just look at the ICC and US's failure to sign on.

JohnG@lt wrote:

International law doesn't supersede any domestic laws unless they are ratified by the sovereign nation.

See, you agree that international law supercedes domestic law between to signatories of the international law/agreement.

Right, but the US has never ratified a treaty that superseded US laws. International law may add on to what the US does, but the laws have never replaced our own. Why? Because we've written most of the international laws ourselves

Interesting case. I've never heard of it. But by the sounds of it, if the Mexican company were producing product in Mexico and shipping north under a FTA and the US attempted to prohibit sales or to slap a tax on it, then the mexican company would have complained to a board set up under the FTA, not to a US court. The ruling of the FTA board would not have been incorrect. The FTA would have stopped the extraterritorial effect of the US law as a protectionist measure.

On the other hand, a Mexican company producing in the US would be subject to all US laws. The FTA would not save them from that.

I did hear of a similar case where Canada prohibited the importation of MTBE, a gas additive that replaced lead, for health and pollution reasons. A US company sued to a NAFTA board and won. I believe they got around $10 million or something like that.


Anyway trade agreements are funny things that can supersede domestic law in some circumstances, or at the least result in financial penalties.

Anyway the US is funny on treaties. They sign them, but then they must be ratified by congress and congress never simply signs off on the treaties. What they do is domesticate the treaties and of course make changes that prohibit foreign powers from interfereing in domestic affairs. While some other countries have constitutional provisions that have automatic ratification of the entire treaty and automatic domestication of all provisions and that can include international oversight or enforcement measures that supersede domestic law. The US to my knowledge has never done this.



On the OP... International law is really about states protecting themselves. They would like to say that they are the only actors under international law and why not states are the entities creating international. The problem as I see it is that states use that claim of authority to enforce borders against the claims of cultural or tribal groups... ie why can't a tribal group be an autonomous region free of domestic law or why can't Iraq be separated into three countries based on ethnic lines. Answer: it would violate international law regarding the "sanctity" of keeping borders static. States are the only actors recognized under international law because they make the rules to protect themselves and they like it that way.

In that light, NGOs and other groups are really the beggars of the international community who can be shut out of any discourse save for the operation of the politics of embarrassment.

I really hope I didn't just do someones homework

ghettoperson wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

thats a butt load of writing

Bet you're glad you go to a fake college.

...or study law