• zephyreks@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, what you’re saying is, international law should be superceded by domestic law?

    • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s how it normally works, yes… particularly if the country in question is not a signatory to the ‘international law’ in question.

        • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That they can issue court orders to companies that do business in their territory?

          They … they know…

          • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That domestic policy supercedes international law? That’s literally been the entire argument for sanctions against China: that their domestic policy violates international law and that under the rules-based international order someone needs to do something about it.

            • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry I am finding it very difficult to follow your argument.

              Can you explain what “international law” you believe US sanctions to have broken?

              • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Other way around: the US is projecting international law on domestic issues that, as we’ve already established, should be governed by domestic policy before falling to international law.

                As we’ve already established, condemnation and punitive actions against a country for unilateral domestic policy decisions doesn’t make sense, even if they are in violation of international law.