Lifestyle > Train of Thought

JEWS ARE LIARS!

<< < (8/14) > >>

AndrE16686:
^^^

What is your sig supposed to mean?

I TO DA GEEZY:
In my sig I'm laying the responsibility for the deaths of Palestinian civilians, on the Palestinian leadership.

AndrE16686:
^^^

 :eh:  So.......the Israeli bullet in the back of the 12-year old Palestinian girl's head has nothing to do with the cause of her death?

I TO DA GEEZY:
Question is whether you view the terms "cause of death" and "responsibility for death" as perpetual equivalents?

I agree that in a single legal system, under a single convention, resulting in a single sovereign assigned to maintain the safety of his subordinates (BTW this is the only political environment in which TRUE law can exist), both concepts should be, and are, equivalent.
However, when we are debating about clashes of two, or more, sovereign entities, these concepts deviate from each other in meaning.
In a war, what responsibility does one side hold toward the casualties of another?- None, the legal responsibility is laid upon the sovereign to which the casualty pertains.That is because the fundamental reason for the existence of a sovereign is his capacity to provide the safety and protection of his subordinates- by failing to do so he undermines the convention with his subordinates, hence the reason for his political power and existence.

There are no actual legal obligations between two sides at war- that's what war means by definition. Law exists only as part of a convention. War means absence of convention between the sides. Hence, "cause of death" and "responsibility for death" mean different things when we're not discussing a situation within the boundaries of a single set of laws under a single sovereign.

War means absence of convention between the sides, war means absence of agreement between the sides. Absence of agreement between the sides means absence of unitary law applicable to both sides, hence the absence of legal responsibility between the sides.

P.S This is why the concept of International Law is hollow of meaning, because this is the only law originating in a non-existent sovereign. A law does not exist without a sovereign. A sovereign is a product of convention as much as a convention is a product of a sovereign (Chicken and egg type of thing especially in democracies). An International Law can not exist without an international sovereign. That is unless you truly believe we're living in a global state or that the UN is a substantial international sovereign.

dexter:
GOY! lol.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page