And if you do shoot, aim center mass
The good ColumbusGuy and I have previously discussed whether there can be such a thing as international law, when there is no international power of compulsion.
Here's an interesting example of how leverage can maybe, sometimes, be a useful substitute for compulsion. Because it's a NYTimes piece that will make itself unavailable at some point, I'll summarize:
In 2003 or thereabouts, the US federal government made it illegal for Americans to place bets over the internet (with some exceptions), and for US banks to make or accept the associated financial transactions. Antigua and Barbuda, besides having pretty good reefs for scuba diving, is home to many internet gambling companies, and filed suit with the WTO that the US laws were protectionist. The WTO ruled in favor of A&B, holding that the US' allowance of those exceptions -- for state lotteries, race tracks and the like -- favored domestic merchants over international merchants, and was punishable by sanctions. They're now at the punishment phase, and given that the effects of normal "tit for tat" trade barrier punishment would be de minimis, A&B is seeking permission to sell at will US copyrighted intellectual property products such as software, movies and music, without paying the US copyright holders.
The dispute raises novel questions involving diplomacy, hypocrisy, and free trade. But I'd submit that CG is still right -- when at the end of the day you can say "no thanks," it ain't law.
posted by QueensGuy @ 12:28 PM
5 Comments:
My International Law Professor described it as similar to "laws" among family members. That is to say, international law involves standards of behavior that might be understood somewhat differently from one member to another; and that might be observed differently by each member, but that nonetheless are there. They are enforced by the relations between the members. It's not the same as being sent to jail, but if you're on the outs, it can hurt quite a bit -- both psychologically and also economically, etc. (Just as, if your sisters and brothers think you took advantage of a weakened parent, for example, you might find you're not invited to Thanksgiving, people aren't talking to you, and/or things are arranged so you're written out of the will. That's still a kind of enforcement.) That's why, over time, people like Quaddafi decide that it's not worth continuing to violate the norms, and they try to come into the circle for the benefits that will achieve. I think that's actually a fairly insightful view of what "law" can encompass.
Ruth Parasol, perhaps the only female self-made billionaire in American history, is not allowed to return to America because so much of her money was made by running internet gambling websites.
With two billion dollars and a home in Gibraltar, I imagine she can secretly visit her folks in Marin County whenever she wants. I don't think that international law can touch her....
Even though O.J. is not in jail, we wouldn't say there is no law against murder.
No, but if OJ could have skipped jail if he chose, rather than a judge and jury deciding, we would say the law against murder isn't law as we normally see it.
I still don't get that -- is there a law against her returning to the U.S.? If so, I assume that, if she were caught here, she could be punished for that. It's just a matter that enought money helps you not get caught? That can be true for murderers too.
Post a Comment
<< Home