Teamramrod
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,386
- Reaction score
- 208
Turns out Osama was unarmed. What do you think now?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-unarmed-killed-white-house/story?id=13520152
While I agree with your conclusion, you are over simplifying the situation drastically. There is a lot of debate on the subject and writing a paper about it doesn't prove your position.
That article is a somewhat decent summary, but takes a decidedly European perspective on what is and isn't legal in international law. Most American scholars tend to be more conservative in saying things are prohibited by international law than their European counterparts.
(And yes, international law is absolutely law.)
Which has more clout, international law or the US's immigration policies?
Trick question. Both have clout.
Good answer. Let me rephrase. Which one is ignored more openly?
That article is a somewhat decent summary, but takes a decidedly European perspective on what is and isn't legal in international law. Most American scholars tend to be more conservative in saying things are prohibited by international law than their European counterparts.
(And yes, international law is absolutely law.)
According to a lot of jurisprudence law only exists if it enforced.
If there is one thing getting an LLM in international and comparative law has taught me it is that it doesn't exist to the extent a lot people like to think it does. It def exists in some circumstances and can be good (private international law is way more readily accepted for example), but it is also way less clear than a lot of people think.
who cares
Shep Smith is a registered Democrat, fyi.
for serious
lol if you think the US heeds "international laws"