The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
107

No such guarantee would be meaningful if the US administration and congress change their opinion. Whatever they write in law or sign, they can undo -- if not legally then in practice. The US had ratified a treaty with Panama about who had control over which part of the Canal zone, yet they deposed Noriega. The US had given security guarantees to Ukraine ...


96

The answer is right in the Wikipedia page you cited (emphasis added): War reparations are compensation payments made after a war by the vanquished to the victors. The United States has not been vanquished in a war, so it has not been in a situation where it would make a payment to a victor of a war. Being “vanquished” implies not merely “losing” a war, ...


72

I think there are two main reasons. Ethics (which does apply to dogs in many parts of the world) and the fact that there aren't that many whales (as opposed to dogs). Ethics It's seen as immoral. This argument also applies to dogs (note, pictures may be disturbing). As such, you see a lot of outrage about dog consumption as well. For example, these ...


57

There is an ethical argument that hasn't been mentioned yet. Many people find whale hunting unethical (see JJJs excellent answer), despite supporting deer hunting and chicken farming, because we think whales are smart. There is a correlation between how intelligent an animal is, and how likely people are to oppose its hunt and consumption. The change in ...


52

If the companies ignore the laws of the European Union (EU), then the EU can fine them. The United States (US) may refuse to collect on the fines, but even so, the example company is doing business in the EU. Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.fr, and Amazon.de collect money in the EU via credit cards. Those credit cards bill EU banks. The EU can of course prevent ...


50

The agreement to pay war reparations is usually part of a peace treaty. It is usually a demand the superior party makes from the inferior party in exchange for peace. In any wars where the United States "lost" in the past 100 years, the United States simply gave up on occupying the other parties' territory and withdrew their troops. The "winning" side was ...


48

Your question is slightly at odds with reality. First off, with the important exception of the US government, nobody sensible is quibbling over the mounting amount of evidence that Agent Orange had short and long lasting side effects. As you've noted already, the US government is not accepting any guilt or responsibility. So the real question is whether ...


43

One undiscussed reason that Japanese whaling is so specifically opposed by certain nations (specifically New Zealand & Australia) is that much of the Japanese whaling happens in the Southern Ocean, near these countries but very far away from Japan. Part of the national self-image of these countries is that of custodians of the environment; New Zealand's ...


34

The US's only interest in Ukraine is to keep Russia out of Ukraine. The US maintains a containment strategy on Russia, meaning that it tries to keep Russia from expanding and becoming a powerful empire and military adversary. It does not want Russia to expand into its former USSR territories. NATO exists for this express purpose to defend nations against the ...


34

The ICC has approximately no legal status under the US Constitution. In particular: It is not an Article III (federal) court because it was not established by Congress. It is not treated as a foreign court under principles of comity, because it is not part of the legal apparatus of any sovereign state recognized by the United States. The United States has ...


33

If they have EU-registered subsidiaries and/or operate business towards EU customers, why shouldn't they be subject to EU laws? And yes, technically the EU can block the domain name, not that this will ever happen as the EU prides itself on the freedom and liberalism provided to all citizens, but nonetheless they still have the power to do so if they ever ...


32

what international law(s) are at play here? In the case of Assange being removed from the Ecuadorian embassy with the consent of the ambassador -- only the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Subsequent likely proceedings are not covered in this answer but, for example, the Universal Decaration on Human Rights can apply to extradition proceedings. ...


31

The treaty you're thinking of is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also known as the NPT or NNPT). The core of this treaty for non-nuclear weapon states is Article II, which says Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear ...


31

An important factor here is the treaties a country has signed up to. In this case, a relevant one is the 1951 Refugee Convention. From UNHCR: The 1951 Refugee Convention is the key legal document that forms the basis of our work. Ratified​ by 145 State parties, it defines the term ‘refugee’ and outlines the rights of the displaced, as well as the legal ...


30

Same way CFC problem was addressed. As you will notice if you look at the detail of the issue (e.g., this blog post - which is overall very pro-regulation and pro-environmentalism and aggressively anti-free-market), CFC regulation by the government happened after the CFC market shrunk more than 75% already. In other words, 75% of the problem was solved by ...


30

There is no reliably humane way to kill whales according to the New Zealand government. The article starts with the statement: "Experience has shown that it is very difficult to kill a whale at sea humanely; that is, by causing minimum pain or instantaneous death."


29

I would disagree with your initial statement "Many cultural cuisines like rabbits, cows, trout, pigs, chicken, reindeer or walruses are consumed without international criticism", at least in spirit. There are protests, within and across national boarders, about the hunting or eating of certain groups of animals, including those in your list. Cows are farmed,...


27

None of the countries was recognized as the sole successor of Socialistic Yugoslavia. Each of the republics had to apply for a new membership. Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia issued the following opinion (No. 9) on the state succession: [The Commission] ruled that it should be resolved by mutual agreement between the several ...


26

What actions are legal against pirates for private ships? It depends on the maritime laws of the flag state and whether the ship is in international or national waters at the time of the incident. Hence the answer is highly variable depending on the exactly which marine treaties the flag state has signed and ratified. However the doctrine of universal ...


26

Short Answer No. Obviously, anyone can bring a lawsuit at any time on any theory, but such as lawsuit would be dismissed early on in any of the forums in which it could be brought. It does not state a valid legal claim that can prevail in some tribunal that can enforce it. What Is International Law? International law is not a settled, consensus thing in ...


26

Yes The first and most obvious method is based on the UN charter, Article VI, which says in its entirety: A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Obviously, if ...


26

The Wikipedia article on indigenous peoples contains various definitions. There are basically two key ideas: The indigenous population is culturally distinct from the prevailing society in the region. There is historical continuity from something that predates the prevailing society to the indigenous group. For the most part, ethnic Europeans living in ...


26

Countries are not usually prosecuted, only the individuals responsible in the command structure. There is an international criminal court; not only has the US not signed up to obey its judgements, it has a specific law ("Hague Invasion Act") preventing the international court's judgements being enforced against US military staff. "international court" ...


25

The key convention is the 1951 refugee convention. The key points to this instrument is that refugees should not be returned to a country where they are under threat. Technically a person only becomes a refugee when they cross a border. "Under threat" means "having a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, ...


24

If someone was concerned about this impact (and no generous billionaires step up to fix it out of the goodness of their hearts) they'd first need to be able to quantify and qualify said impact in a way in which it can be attributable to individual sources. They'd have to fund that research themselves, with few hopes of an ROI for their labor. Once they could ...


23

The US actually is a signatory since 1994 (following an Agreement on Implementation), it just hasn't ratified the treaty. To stick just to the relatively recent history, the ratification is blocked by a group of Republican senators, and this has been the case for a good number of years. During the Obama administration, the executive was in favor. The G.W. ...


22

The united states has never really been supportive of international law treaties. The main reason is many of them violate rights granted to citizens and are fairly major breaches of sovereignty. Most prominently is the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. The international Court of Justice is slightly different, in that it is partially ...


22

Really the compulsion is a moral and practical one, rather than something enforced by international law: refugees tend to arrive in large numbers, turning them away is both difficult and tends to get them killed. It may be difficult to deport people to a war zone, e.g. if there are no functioning airports. The shadow of the Holocaust hangs over 20th-century ...


19

First of all, it is quite unlikely that Germany would want to do that. They just intentionally downsized their military to 180,000 soldiers in the past decades when they first reduced and then completely suspended conscription. And now that the Bundeswehr was reformed into a pure volunteer army, it has trouble getting onto its current nominal manpower, ...


18

From a legal perspective: Israel hasn't signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Iran did sign the treaty and got the benefits from it - so Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon or not cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency to prove otherwise is a breach of the treaty. From a political / practical point of view: ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible