RE: Should ISIS fighters/wives/children be repatriated?
February 21, 2019 at 6:58 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2019 at 7:00 pm by fredd bear.)
As I understand it, the term "International Law' is a bit misleading. In reality, it's more like 'international convention', just like various "human rights conventions" Those laws and conventions are not binding. Who could possibly enforce such laws against say the US, Uk, Australia, etc ?
Australia is a signatory to various human rights conventions. Over the last few years , we have been criticised by various human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International. This because of government policy to detain asylum seekers, men women and children, in off shore detention centres such as Nauru Island. The official response has been to ignore such criticism. Unofficially, they get told to fuck off. Some of the left wing paper tigers make a bit of noise. They are also ignored.
Case in point, this silly young woman who has had her British citizenship revoked. Would probably be a cause celebre here too. For about 5 minutes. I can't remember a case of anyone having their Australian citizenship revoked. It's an offence under Australian law to join a terrorist organisation and/or fight for them overseas. The young women would probably find herself in prison, for a few years, after which time she would be assessed and continuously monitored.
"International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted in relations between nations.[1][2] It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.[3] International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries rather than to individual citizens. National law may become international law when treaties permit national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform to respective parts.
International law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member may choose to not abide by international law, and even to break its treaty.[4] This is an issue of state sovereignty. International laws are consent-based. Violations of customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens) can lead to wars. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
"International human rights instruments are treaties and other international documents relevant to international human rights law and the protection of human rights in general.[1] They can be classified into two categories: declarations, adopted by bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, which are not legally binding although they may be politically so as soft law;[2] and conventions, which are legally binding instruments concluded under international law. International treaties and even declarations can, over time, obtain the status of customary international law.
International human rights instruments can be divided further into global instruments, to which any state in the world can be a party, and regional instruments, which are restricted to states in a particular region of the world.
Most conventions establish mechanisms to oversee their implementation. In some cases these mechanisms have relatively little power, and are often ignored by member states; in other cases these mechanisms have great political and legal authority, and their decisions are almost always implemented. Examples of the first case include the UN treaty committees, while the best exemplar of the second case is the European Court of Human Rights "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio...nstruments
As an Aussie, I'm in no position to make a 'holier than thou" fuss over the case in question.
Australia is a signatory to various human rights conventions. Over the last few years , we have been criticised by various human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International. This because of government policy to detain asylum seekers, men women and children, in off shore detention centres such as Nauru Island. The official response has been to ignore such criticism. Unofficially, they get told to fuck off. Some of the left wing paper tigers make a bit of noise. They are also ignored.
Case in point, this silly young woman who has had her British citizenship revoked. Would probably be a cause celebre here too. For about 5 minutes. I can't remember a case of anyone having their Australian citizenship revoked. It's an offence under Australian law to join a terrorist organisation and/or fight for them overseas. The young women would probably find herself in prison, for a few years, after which time she would be assessed and continuously monitored.
"International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted in relations between nations.[1][2] It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.[3] International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries rather than to individual citizens. National law may become international law when treaties permit national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform to respective parts.
International law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member may choose to not abide by international law, and even to break its treaty.[4] This is an issue of state sovereignty. International laws are consent-based. Violations of customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens) can lead to wars. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
"International human rights instruments are treaties and other international documents relevant to international human rights law and the protection of human rights in general.[1] They can be classified into two categories: declarations, adopted by bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, which are not legally binding although they may be politically so as soft law;[2] and conventions, which are legally binding instruments concluded under international law. International treaties and even declarations can, over time, obtain the status of customary international law.
International human rights instruments can be divided further into global instruments, to which any state in the world can be a party, and regional instruments, which are restricted to states in a particular region of the world.
Most conventions establish mechanisms to oversee their implementation. In some cases these mechanisms have relatively little power, and are often ignored by member states; in other cases these mechanisms have great political and legal authority, and their decisions are almost always implemented. Examples of the first case include the UN treaty committees, while the best exemplar of the second case is the European Court of Human Rights "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio...nstruments
As an Aussie, I'm in no position to make a 'holier than thou" fuss over the case in question.
