Weren't there multiple cases of genocide, deaths squads, kidnapping, unfortunate people running from the Saudis getting suicides, and other really goddamned shady shit?
Exactly. International Law only matters when the Big Boys say it does.
Weren't there multiple cases of genocide, deaths squads, kidnapping, unfortunate people running from the Saudis getting suicides, and other really goddamned shady shit?
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.... Since when did anyone give a shit about international law?
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...Weren't there multiple cases of genocide, deaths squads, kidnapping, unfortunate people running from the Saudis getting suicides, and other really goddamned shady shit?
Your ignorance is really cute.Exactly. International Law only matters when the Big Boys say it does.
For the matter of this thread, your post would be relevant if UK was a Big Boy.Exactly. International Law only matters when the Big Boys say it does.
For the matter of this thread, your post would be relevant if UK was a Big Boy.
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.Well, it is still on the P5, has a nuclear arsenal and a commonwealth.
They are children, they have yet to learn.Don't you think their ignorance is cute @Rufus Shinra, @Everett, @NotArcanist, @Shikaze, @Chatokay, @Wakko? They're genuinely ignorant of what drives the world.
Indeed.They are children, they have yet to learn.
They are children, they have yet to learn.
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.Don't you think their ignorance is cute @Rufus Shinra, @Everett, @NotArcanist, @Shikaze, @Chatokay, @Wakko? They're genuinely ignorant of what drives the world.
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".
Given the Brexit situation, the British Parliament will soon realize how much it needs goodwill from the EU if it wants to salvage whatever it can.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.So what happens if Downing Street/Parliament tells the ECtHR to fuck off in this case?
And if the UK goes back on its word about international agreements, why would anyone sign, I dunno... trade deals with them?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.
Yep.And if the UK goes back on its word about international agreements, why would anyone sign, I dunno... trade deals with them?
Beside, that a law is being transgressed doesn't mean that this law doesn't exist.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.
Or that every country in the world does it.Beside, that a law is being transgressed doesn't mean that this law doesn't exist.
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.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
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.
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).So what happens if Downing Street/Parliament tells the ECtHR to fuck off in this case?
Wasn't the ECHR in good part built by the Brits anyway?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:
Ah, the broken record, again. Tell us about the Hymn to Joy too!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.