What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ISIS schoolgirl wants to return home

... Since when did anyone give a shit about international law?
Since it regulates everything in the modern world? Your computers, your smartphones, your freedom of travel, economy,.... If you knew (because you obviously don't) how international law matters, you would think twice before saying something like this.

In this case, there are treaties on statelessness, it's considered very important. Even if the family loses in UK domestic court, they can go before the ECtHR and the UK will lose there, and it will have to comply with the rulings. As they did in various cases.

Weren't there multiple cases of genocide, deaths squads, kidnapping, unfortunate people running from the Saudis getting suicides, and other really goddamned shady shit?
International law, most of it, doesn't rely on the UNSC (in)actions. The WTO, ICC, ICJ are actually doing quite a good job both on international public and private law...

International law rules apply to individuals throughout the world in order to solve conflicts (expatriation, repatriation, marriage recognition, nationality, international crimes like kidnapping (we actually made a lot of progress thanks to treaties on that), etc.). Interpol is quite useful for crimes like kidnapping, drug trade, etc.

International law isn't only UNSC's decisions. And for the record, 44 individuals have been indicted in the ICC, including Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo, and DR Congo vice-president Jean-Pierre Bemba. So yes, international law, international institutions are useful.

Basically, the world would not function — AT ALL — without international law because you need institutions and rules to peacefully solve litigation between countries, regulates relations between states and individuals, international crimes, rules on marriage recognition or nationality), trade between countries, trade between companies from different countries, customs, etc.

International law is so important that it's evolving quickly. What you're talking about is merely what? 10% of the body of international laws?

Exactly. International Law only matters when the Big Boys say it does.
Your ignorance is really cute. 🤗
 
Last edited:
For the matter of this thread, your post would be relevant if UK was a Big Boy.

Well, it is still on the P5, has a nuclear arsenal and a commonwealth.

Oh and @Arius Bolsonaro is openly talking about stripping away the Amazon and slaughtering indigenous peoples, so what does the rest of the world do? Invite him to Davos! The entirety of Africa has openly defied the ICC on handing over Omar Al Bashir, while Chattel slavery has made a comeback to Libya. But hey a few nice words on paper stopped all that right?
 
Well, it is still on the P5, has a nuclear arsenal and a commonwealth.
It is on the P5, it has missiles loaned by the US and the Commonwealth stopped giving a shit about UK a long time ago, bowing to the US instead and siding with EU over UK in the whole Brexit affair. UK has a tendency to strongly overestimate its own position in the world. The Commonwealth part is the most amusing one, Australia, NZ and Canada are in the US sphere of influence, not the British one.
 
Don't you think their ignorance is cute @Rufus Shinra, @Everett, @NotArcanist, @Shikaze, @Chatokay, @Wakko? They're genuinely ignorant of what drives the world. 🤗
I think that most people don't know 95% of what is actually international law - the thousands and thousands of bilateral and multilateral agreements (like WTO) that regulate everyhting today. OTOH if you look at some of the most visible transgressions against international law - be it the 2003 Iraq War, or Bolton's recent attack on the ICC, I understand Balerion's skepticism, though that is just a small subset of the whole picture.
 
Exactly. I don't deny that sometimes there are transgressions but that's a very small part of the whole thing, and usually limited to violation of international public law. This? The British government took a shot at statelessness, nationality.

Furthermore, in several cases where the UK government violated one of its citizen's rights and the case was brought before European courts (ECtHR, CJEU), it lost and complied with the ruling.

So much for being a "Big Boy".
 
Last edited:
Exactly. I don't deny that sometimes there are transgressions but that's a very small part of the whole thing, and usually limited to violation of international public law. This? The British government took a shot at statelessness, nationality.

Furthermore, in several cases where the UK government violated one of its citizen's rights and the case was brought before European courts (ECtHR, CJEU), it lost and complied with the ruling.

So much for being a "Big Boy".

So what happens if Downing Street/Parliament tells the ECtHR to fuck off in this case?
 
So what happens if Downing Street/Parliament tells the ECtHR to fuck off in this case?
If it goes to the ECtHR, the family can bring the ruling to UK courts, and they will comply as they usually do (even though EctHR rulings (CJEU (EU) are) are not binding), states have committed to abide by the ECtHR judgments in disputes concerning them and national courts acknowledge the fact that the decisions of the ECtHR have a considerable influence on their jurisprudence, so whether or not it is legally binding doesn't really matter, they comply with it. For example, many recent changes in British law followed a conviction of the UK by the Court.

Now, if the family decides to bring this to the CJEU, then the ruling will have a binding character on its own and the CJEU is not known to be merciful of States violating HR laws. It depends on whether or not the UK will still be a part of the EU when (if) the family decides to bring the case there.
 
If it goes to the ECtHR, the family can bring the ruling to UK courts, and they will comply as they usually do (even though EctHR rulings (CJEU are) are not binding), states have committed to abide by the ECtHR judgments in disputes concerning them and national courts acknowledge the fact that the decisions of the ECtHR have a considerable influence on their jurisprudence, so whether or not it is legally binding doesn't really matter, they comply with it. For example, many recent changes in British law followed a conviction of the UK by the Court.
And if the UK goes back on its word about international agreements, why would anyone sign, I dunno... trade deals with them?
 
I think that most people don't know 95% of what is actually international law - the thousands and thousands of bilateral and multilateral agreements (like WTO) that regulate everyhting today. OTOH if you look at some of the most visible transgressions against international law - be it the 2003 Iraq War, or Bolton's recent attack on the ICC, I understand Balerion's skepticism, though that is just a small subset of the whole picture.
Beside, that a law is being transgressed doesn't mean that this law doesn't exist.
 
Ah yeah, didn't take long to go to a bash Britain thread did it? What does Brexit have to do with it?

Girl is Bangledeshi now, not British. Her father is Bangledeshi and at this very moment is actually in Bangledesh where there is a movement to bring her there. She's an unapologetic terrorist who would be a threat to innocent people, she's not coming back and if she can't take care of her kid that's not the problem of the state. She had three kids, they all died when thousands of others didn't in the same circumstances so maybe the fault is more with her. Also to note both child and mother were in a UN stocked hospital run by professionals.

So no, the UK isn't to blame nor does it have a responsibility to kowtow to terrorists just because they made a really bad choice about who to let spunk in them and where. This is the world they made, now they get to live in it and boo hoo. I don't blame the Govt for ignoring her, rather I praise it for bombing the shit out of these lowlifes in the first place.
 
Girl is Bangledeshi now, not British. Her father is Bangledeshi and at this very moment is actually in Bangledesh where there is a movement to bring her there
As I explained to you: no she is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She's stateless, that's your government's fault. The fact that your government failed to do its duty towards one of its citizen is also its responsibility.

FieryMatter gets it, even if he doesn't have the same conclusion:

And as I explained multiple times to you, doing so would have been criticized and likely challenged in courts. There is no legal reason to only evacuate the child, let the mother there while deciding what to do with her, there is no legal ground for it. She may be a ISIS bride but she's still a British citizen, she still has rights very much alike more serious criminals currently detained in the UK. Amidst a conflicted area where we don't really know who's authority apply and how, where the UK has no jurisdiction, there is no reason to leave her there. Usually, in such occasions, States would handle the matter themselves, at home.

There is no reason not to deal with her once she's back in-country. Then you could jail her, or even expel her. Legally.

We are talking about a government who tried to dump her to the Bangladeshi. They're not really following the right procedure nor making the right call. She's a British citizen, without the presence of a local democratic state and independent judiciary, it's safer and more legally sound to deal with her in the UK. The UK has a responsibility towards all of its citizens, it has jurisdiction over them. This government had one job, ONE and it wasn't even capable to do it. It FAILED to make the proper call, deal with it in a lawful way. They should have repatriated both of them and THEN let the judiciary takes the matter in its hands. It is a legal matter after all. Hell, they should have consulted the judiciary, asking for an advisory opinion.

The truth is: they're incompetent. They weren't acting as a government but as politicians looking for (re)election. And now they're saying that it was "tragic", that it is "unfortunate". Give me a break. They're assholes. A government should be capable to make unpopular decisions to deal with complex situations in a lawful way. Since when public opinion cares about the law, a government duties, treaties, etc. ? Public opinion reacts emotionally. Statecraft and law don't need emotions, they need facts and legality. And the fact remains that the British prison system can handle her and the law, as a British citizen, makes her a British problem. It's not Bangladesh's problem. She deserved a fair trial in the UK. Her child deserved to live. They DUMPED both of them. There is no universe where such decision would be normal. That is NOT how a government should behave, no matter your opinion of her.

Having reconsidered the matter I agree that both of them should have been evacuated, but on the basis that the mother was also a British citizen (sure, she later got her citizenship revoked in extremely dubious to unlawful circumstances, but prior to that she was still undoubtedly a British citizen or they wouldn't need to 'revoke' it in the first place), and not on the basis that she had automatic right of entry due to being the child's mother. Had she lost her UK citizenship for one reason or another prior to asking for help, I would have continued arguing for them to be separated while the mother's status was being determined.

Nevertheless in the face of UK government's stupid or even illegal actions she should have sent her child ahead if she really put his welfare as the first priority.

In short, two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Last edited:
So what happens if Downing Street/Parliament tells the ECtHR to fuck off in this case?
ECHR has nothing to do with the European Union, it's been established by the European Convention on Human Rights (which it oversees) and that is under the Council of Europe. Even Russia, for example, is bound by the decisions of the ECHR (and abides by them, even though it's a much bigger and badder boy than the UK).
As long as the UK is party to the Convention, it has to abide by the decisions of the Court - and it will.
 
ECHR has nothing to do with the European Union, it's been established by the European Convention on Human Rights (which it oversees) and that is under the Council of Europe. Even Russia, for example, is bound by the decisions of the ECHR (and abides by them, even though it's a much bigger and badder boy than the UK).
As long as the UK is party to the Convention, it has to abide by the decisions of the Court - and it will.
Wasn't the ECHR in good part built by the Brits anyway?

@Balerion Sir Patrick Stewart about the ECHR:

 
Did a few nice words on paper stop the European countries from participating in Bush era torture programmes? Did they stop Chattel Slavery from making a comeback in Libya?
Ah, the broken record, again. Tell us about the Hymn to Joy too!

The mighty sovereign government of Her Majesty has also its own engagements to the UN about not starting illegal wars of aggression, that it broke in 2003, so we must disband the UN! You're really becoming a sad parody of yourself, going back to your soundbites every single time you've put on the back foot.
 
Ah, the broken record, again. Tell us about the Hymn to Joy too!

The mighty sovereign government of Her Majesty has also its own engagements to the UN about not starting illegal wars of aggression, that it broke in 2003, so we must disband the UN! You're really becoming a sad parody of yourself, going back to your soundbites every single time you've put on the back foot.

My point was that International Law has virtually laughable enforcement mechanisms.
 
Back
Top Bottom