Posted on 12/23/2023 12:57:57 AM PST by RandFan
Oh yes there is.
I don’t trust Pompeo. Something is off about him.
His demeanor, etc. is just too pat.
Similarly, Israel did not violate international law when Israeli agents grabbed up Nazi fugitive Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and tried and executed him in Israel. Eventually, Israel admitted to a violation of Argentine sovereignty, which was a matter between those two countries.
add to watch list
thanx rand fan
What they have done to Assage is criminal.
I’m sure the anti-Tucker bots will be in to tell us he’s a russian stooge.
Guess that would apply to things like blowing up Nordstream, right?
-fJRoberts-
“... immune from prosecution for crimes committed abroad that are “acts of state.””
Think about it. In a world in which countries spy against each other as a matter of routine, spies get caught now and then and sent to prison or even executed. When though have you heard of a ranking foreign government official who sent the spies out being charged with a crime? The reason that you do not is customary immunity. If not, international relations would soon become unmanageable because countries would be frequently charging each others’ leaders with crimes related to spying.
Rationalization.
Is that de facto, or de jure as you first claimed?
Have you got a Nordstream answer yet?
For mankind, as a general rule, in the absence of law-giving authority, custom usually has the force of law. In effect, the reliance interests embodied in custom tend to have the force of law.
As for Nordstream, what is your question?
iow it’s bs, whoever has the power makes the rules and does as he pleases
re: Nordstream, according to your theory when it is shown that it was blown up by Bidementia he will have “customary international law immunity”, right?
-fJRoberts-
As to Biden for Nordstream and Pompeo in regard to Assange, due to legislation by Congress, they have absolute immunity from domestic US criminal charges because they were within the scope of their respective duties in office.
ae I said, bs
More broadly, you might also take a look at how "Lex Mercatoria" (Latin for "merchant law") developed. Usually referred to as "the Law Merchant" or "Code Merchant" in English, it was the business customs, practices, and expectations that arose during medieval times in Europe as a way of settling disputes. In the absence of reliable judicial remedies, the "Law Merchant" was treated by businessmen as binding.
Much of international law is like that today, being a set of customs and practices that provide a benchmark for how nation states are expected to behave. As with the Law Merchant, a key goal is not justice in the sense of domestic law but to keep the otherwise lawless system of international relations functioning. The general legal immunity of high officials for "acts of state" follows as a matter of necessity.
That has as much efficacy as prosecutorial discretion or the authority of the bench.
Bottom line power rules.
Nation can be polite about it but bottom line power and gld make the rules.
-fJRoberts-
The traditional shorthand phrase is “reasons of state,” meaning that something that would be disreputable or wrong or illegal in a private capacity was done for the good of the country and is therefore legal even commendable if unseemly.
That of course is typical juvenile diplomat rational by those who don’t actually wield the power but need relevance, especially historically.
I get the snark, but your complaint is with the English language and the fact of centuries of diplomatic practice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.