Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of |
From | Russ |
Date | 2002-04-18 19:21 (2002-04-18 19:21) |
Message-ID | <20020418132112.07832.00001767@mb-mv.aol.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
Follows | paulh |
Oje brought up the broad (and nebulous) concept of 'international law'. I'm wondering how consistently it is applied.In article <jsyv8.1807$iB4.5124@nntpserver.swip.net>, "?jevind L?ng" <ojevind.lang@swipnet.se>writes:paulhOf course, you may simply claim that the nationalist areas were occupied territory and the IRA legitimate defence forces fighting to evict an invading force. However, international law does not agree with you.I wonder what 'international law' said about Hungary in 1956 and
Czechoslovakiain 1968?a
The 'international law' you refer to was created by states and naturally hasbias in favor of states.cannot
To paraphrase the American Declaration of Independence, the right of self defense is an inalienable right endowed to us by our Creator and whichbe taken away from us by any human 'law'Oh look...Russ is running off at a tangent and not answering the issue again. How is Hungary/Czechoslovakia pertinent directly to the what happens in NI.
Additionally a/This alleged right doesn't really apply to internal issues does it though? What do you think happens when anyone tries to defend themselves from the US government, internal or external.Of course it does. That's the point of saying it's an inalienable right endowed by our creator. You have a right to life, correct? Is that right inherent to you or does some government give it to you?
b/ America is a different country..does quoting a law from Uzbekhistan hold any weight you think?I'm citing a broad principle, higher than law.