14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 3 '19 at 16:28 comment added ruakh @BaardKopperud: I'm sorry, I don't understand why you've directed your comment to me ; it doesn't seem to be a response to anything I wrote?
Nov 3 '19 at 13:35 comment added Baard Kopperud @ruakh There may not have been any conflicts at the time - but the political majority may change (in all three countries), and a new agenda be set.
Nov 2 '19 at 6:58 comment added ruakh @Gnudiff: I'm not qualified to analyze the terms of the treaties -- my comments were just to help Sean understand why neither treaty can override the other -- but I'm surprised that you describe those conditions as "unforeseeable" in 1979. By that time, the Six-Day War had demonstrated that Israel was prepared to launch preemptive attacks if necessary; and much of the stage had already been set for the 1982 Lebanon War.
Nov 2 '19 at 6:23 comment added Gnudiff @ruakh note that neither treaty specifically precludes other. They are not in conflict as treaties, but only if specific unforeseeable conditions arise.
Nov 2 '19 at 4:52 comment added David Schwartz @Sean The comparison to laws in not reasonable. A later law can supersede an earlier law because laws don't bind legislatures to outside parties. In the case of a treaty, the entity that made the later treaty was itself bound to outside parties by the earlier treaties and could not agree to do something it had already agreed not to do. If I state my own policy twice, the later policy overrides the former. But if I make an agreement with Alice and then an agreement with Bob, I could not agree with Bob to do anything I agreed not to do with Alice because I already gave up my right to do it.
Nov 1 '19 at 14:50 comment added ruakh @Sean: "I can't have my cake and eat it too" is exactly the issue. I shouldn't have made two contradictory agreements with you and Roger. Having done so, I can't simply weasel out of my promise to one of you by saying it's overridden by my promise to the other.
Nov 1 '19 at 13:31 comment added Chronocidal @Sean You are restoring 3 cars (Red, Green, and Blue). You make a deal with ruakh to give him one of his choosing when you finish it, if he pays you for it now. You made the same deal with Roger. When later you finish the cars, you tell them - they then both send letters, arriving on the same day, asking for the Red car. Who gets it? Neither deal that you made contradicts the other, but the choices that ruakh and Roger made on how to apply the deal afterwards are mutually exclusive. (And, you have already spent the money restoring the cars, so you can't give it back)
Nov 1 '19 at 8:04 comment added Morfildur @Sean International treaties don't always follow logic. There can be conflicting treaties with different parties without either superseding the other. Treaties can be ignored if they are inconvenient. Depending on the incident, it might lead to international sanctions and internal political backlash, but if there is reasonable cause, like such a conflict, people might just accept it. Treaties are in essence just statements of intent and while most tend to be turned into law through ratification, they can't force a country to act against it's wishes if it's willing to accept consequences.
Nov 1 '19 at 6:56 comment added Vikki @ruakh: But you just said that those new promises couldn't override its preexisting treaty obligations; which one is it? You (or Egypt) can't have your cake and eat it too.
Nov 1 '19 at 6:36 comment added ruakh @Sean: For the same reason that crossing my fingers behind my back while "selling" my car doesn't mean that I get to keep both the money and the car. The 1979 Peace Treaty involved major concessions on Israel's part; Egypt's preexisting treaty obligations to other countries don't entitle it to accept those concessions from Israel while ignoring the promises it made in return.
Nov 1 '19 at 6:19 comment added Vikki @ruakh: Then why not simply have the preexisting treaty obligation override that from the later treaty?
Nov 1 '19 at 6:05 comment added ruakh @Sean: No. If you and I make a deal that includes my selling you my car, and then Roger and I make a deal that includes my selling him my car, I can't just go back to you and say that my obligation to you has now been overridden by my obligation to Roger. Rather, my deal with you should have precluded me from making the conflicting deal with anyone else.
Nov 1 '19 at 4:31 comment added Vikki In such a situation, wouldn't the obligation from the later treaty simply override that from the former one (like with literally any set of laws with identical authority levels)?
Oct 31 '19 at 14:30 history answered Roger CC BY-SA 4.0