This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by Maria Kyriacou, 28, Nicosia, Cyprus. To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:
Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048
To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/4404.page
2006-09-26 23:01:16 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The purpose of Public International Law is to provide guidelines for purposeful thought. For instance, if a leader in one country continually violates international law, it provides a means of other leaders to draw a consensus among themsevels and begin a censure process that may include trade embargos, severing of diplomatic ties, restriction of the violator country's citizens' ability to travel and other means of making life difficult for that country. There are means of enforcement, but not very always direct means and they are not always effective means, but there are definitely methods that exist.
2006-09-27 07:54:02 · answer #1 · answered by Candidus 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
A very interesting point, I have just started Public International Law as a module for my Law degree. Many believe it is the UN and the UN charter, but how many countries have gone to war anyway without the UN's permission. look at the US in Panama in 1989 and again in Iraq over the last 2 years or so. The offending country is given a fine, woohoo like that will help, America is rich enough to pay both the fine and the cost of the war at the same time. The points on when countries can take military action is too broad and undefined, it should be more strictly controlled and punishment should be more severe.
Kofi Annan is right in saying that the UN needs to be gaining support and strenghth from its memebers as they have lost alot of confidence. He is right in his revival of the power of the Un shuld wield as it has become little more than a debating ring, with very little action being taken on issues of military action.
2006-09-27 01:18:15 · answer #2 · answered by Emma O 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
International Law is a way of maintaining diplomacy between states, because there is no other power which is more powerful than the state and states would not want their power taken away from them by an international government. We have international organisations such as NATO and the EU that both enforce international treaties but their power can only go so far. But basically, international treaties are choices made by states to maintain international diplomacy.
2006-09-27 21:17:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know much about this subject but I would venture to guess the purpose behind public international law is to set a rule of guidance and ethics and boundaries that are expected to be adhered to by all, but if no one is going to bother than what is the point? It's just a joke if everyone is crossing the lines, and it will eventually all fall to pot as I'm sure is the case already.
2006-09-27 13:23:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem is the people who should be enforcing it. Here in the USA our government is more concerned about Iran, Iraq, Al Qada, and Bin Laden then their own people which is ethically wrong. The only point to the laws right now are to scare people, which does not work most of the time.
2006-09-27 14:26:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no point in having any laws without unbiased, effective enforcement. This does not mean that we should allow corporations and nations to dismantle or ignore these laws. Instead, it should be a wake-up call for everyone to demand unbiased and effective enforcement, especially on laws that protect human rights and the environment.
2006-09-27 15:39:44 · answer #6 · answered by Alex 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they opt to understand if he has a appreciate for the regulation. no matter if it truly is only a definite or absolute self assurance i does no longer say definite if he did not get a fee for it or something. no matter if it truly is accessible he could say he needs to talk it in the previous answering, and then say he did-years in the past yet has on condition that replaced his ideas about that style of project. If he reported No and then were given a lie detecter attempt; the mendacity may be worse than the using the stuff. that is frustrating to say. If he has the danger to talk it, it does no longer be an computerized disqualifier. It should not be. Clinton has executed it, and Obama.
2016-12-02 03:57:57 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None, so why bother to ask. As long as the international community allows stupid shitto happen IE Japan killing all the whales, China crapping out the air, and France well being French, there will be no international law enforcement. So, who cares?
2006-10-01 08:53:18 · answer #8 · answered by ĴΩŋ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a very good question: As I think all the Laws in every country, state or continent should be (International) common Law.
That is the only mechanism for enforcement.
2006-09-27 20:11:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Law is for lawyer, for the rest of us working poor, Power means Law. You got money you got the law. So don't even start saying the rich has the same law as the poor.
Internation law, What are you nut? Make all the law you want. so what? The powerful will alway get there way. just look at bush.
2006-09-28 08:28:28 · answer #10 · answered by Kenshin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋