7 ms·

International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily b

by oneJob 11y ago

International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily bind themselves this will be the case. Here in the U.S. of A. most folks misunderstand the term "state" to mean a political unit that is subservient to the federal level of government. This is only true for certain areas of law, and it is only true because the states bound themselves by voluntarily ratifying the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a few went along for the ride). Most folks here are unaware that each state is, politically speaking, still as sovereign as Germany or China. Arkansas = Australia. New York = Bolivia. Texas = France (except, Texas is bigger than France). So, no, between two states, unless there is a binding, not concent based, agreement between the parties, and even then it's fairly common to break these agreements and settle the outcome in court, well states can do pretty much whatever they want. And they do. Edit: On the subtle points being missed or misunderstood by the replies so far, maybe do some research before sounding off. I've a B.S. in Political Science and am married to a person currently working on their dissertation for their Political Theory Ph.D. whose advisor is ranked above Foucault for the most influential political theorists, and I was able to double check my claims as correct simply by reading some Wikipedia.

rquantz 11y ago
Your comments about US states may have been true prior to the civil war, but certainly have been true since then.
- oneJob 11y ago
  is that an assertion? based on your say so? or was there some reasoning behind that statement, that you'd like to share?
germanier 11y ago
Can individual states sign international treaties? Can states give out citizenship based on their own criteria? Can states impose import duties? Because Germany, China, Australia, Bolivia and France can. The US is not unique in its federal structure.
- oneJob 11y ago
  a state can only not make international treaties if it give up that right. states can give out citizenship based on their own criteria (http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/texas-naturalized-citizenship http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/texas-naturalized-ci...). can states impose import duties? yes (http://www.dutycalculator.com/dc/187995051/food-drinks/fruit-nuts-seeds-vegetables/almonds-in-shell/import-duty-rate-for-importing-california-almonds-from-united-states-to-india-is-0/ http://www.dutycalculator.com/dc/187995051/food-drinks/fruit...) federal structure... wt-what.. seriously, i've no idea where you're going with that one.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Just because it has 'California' in the name 'California Almonds' doesn't mean that California has inked any trade treaties, any more than the Champagne region of France is the entity that enforces it's branding issues on sparkling white wine. Similarly, the page you've linked to there is other countries' import duties on the product - the table column's title is even "Import to Country". Even if the page said what you think it does - I'm from Australia, which is on the list. I'm really interested to see if you can show me the trade agreement California seems to have individually inked with my nation. I don't think it exists, but you apparently do - please reference the law.
    - germanier 11y ago
      They can't present such a law because it's explicitly prohibited by the US constitution, Article 1 Section 8.
      - oneJob 11y ago
        And not all states are the 50 U.S. A German state is not bound by our constitution. They have the right to enter international trade agreements.
    - oneJob 11y ago
      Can't fix stupid.
vacri 11y ago
> still as sovereign as Germany or China Ah, I see. So China, just like a US state, has to honour the public acts and judicial proceedings of neighbouring states via a 'full faith and credit clause'?
- oneJob 11y ago
  the "full faith and credit clause", i.e. article iv, sec. 1 of the u.s. constitution, was written after the constitutions of the states that would eventually sign onto the constitution (clearly), and a long (long) time after the term "state" was being used (c.1300 [1]). Given that a cursory reading of the wikipedia page on this clause states that"At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision," I'm at a loss as to how I'm to interpret your one line response as relates to your argument that U.S. states are not as sovereign as a state such as Germany or China. idk, maybe you were just bored and threw this out into the universe, to see if it would stick, or something. [1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=state http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=state
  - vacri 11y ago
    You have me genuinely puzzled at how you somehow claim that because the term 'state' in this context is 800 years old, it means that law made later than this is somehow weak. I genuinely don't get this age-of-etymology argument you're using. In any case, age of a law is not an automatic trump card. There are multiple sites on the web listing silly laws from the 19th century that never get enforced, for example. > to see if it would stick, or something. What, you mean like saying that the individual US states are as sovereign as China? Also, "I've got a BS and my partner has a PhD in topic X, and I can verify my point by my reading of Wikipedia"? Seriously? Well, my reading of Wikipedia says that you're completely wrong! I'm also King of Namibia and my bestie is the Pope. Just take my word for it.

by oneJob 11y ago

rquantz 11y ago

Your comments about US states may have been true prior to the civil war, but certainly have been true since then.

oneJob 11y ago
is that an assertion? based on your say so? or was there some reasoning behind that statement, that you'd like to share?

germanier 11y ago

Can individual states sign international treaties? Can states give out citizenship based on their own criteria? Can states impose import duties? Because Germany, China, Australia, Bolivia and France can. The US is not unique in its federal structure.

oneJob 11y ago
a state can only not make international treaties if it give up that right. states can give out citizenship based on their own criteria (http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/texas-naturalized-citizenship http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/texas-naturalized-ci...). can states impose import duties? yes (http://www.dutycalculator.com/dc/187995051/food-drinks/fruit-nuts-seeds-vegetables/almonds-in-shell/import-duty-rate-for-importing-california-almonds-from-united-states-to-india-is-0/ http://www.dutycalculator.com/dc/187995051/food-drinks/fruit...) federal structure... wt-what.. seriously, i've no idea where you're going with that one.
- vacri 11y ago
  Just because it has 'California' in the name 'California Almonds' doesn't mean that California has inked any trade treaties, any more than the Champagne region of France is the entity that enforces it's branding issues on sparkling white wine. Similarly, the page you've linked to there is other countries' import duties on the product - the table column's title is even "Import to Country". Even if the page said what you think it does - I'm from Australia, which is on the list. I'm really interested to see if you can show me the trade agreement California seems to have individually inked with my nation. I don't think it exists, but you apparently do - please reference the law.
  - germanier 11y ago
    They can't present such a law because it's explicitly prohibited by the US constitution, Article 1 Section 8.
    - oneJob 11y ago
      And not all states are the 50 U.S. A German state is not bound by our constitution. They have the right to enter international trade agreements.
  - oneJob 11y ago
    Can't fix stupid.

vacri 11y ago

> still as sovereign as Germany or China Ah, I see. So China, just like a US state, has to honour the public acts and judicial proceedings of neighbouring states via a 'full faith and credit clause'?

oneJob 11y ago
the "full faith and credit clause", i.e. article iv, sec. 1 of the u.s. constitution, was written after the constitutions of the states that would eventually sign onto the constitution (clearly), and a long (long) time after the term "state" was being used (c.1300 [1]). Given that a cursory reading of the wikipedia page on this clause states that"At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision," I'm at a loss as to how I'm to interpret your one line response as relates to your argument that U.S. states are not as sovereign as a state such as Germany or China. idk, maybe you were just bored and threw this out into the universe, to see if it would stick, or something. [1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=state http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=state
- vacri 11y ago
  You have me genuinely puzzled at how you somehow claim that because the term 'state' in this context is 800 years old, it means that law made later than this is somehow weak. I genuinely don't get this age-of-etymology argument you're using. In any case, age of a law is not an automatic trump card. There are multiple sites on the web listing silly laws from the 19th century that never get enforced, for example. > to see if it would stick, or something. What, you mean like saying that the individual US states are as sovereign as China? Also, "I've got a BS and my partner has a PhD in topic X, and I can verify my point by my reading of Wikipedia"? Seriously? Well, my reading of Wikipedia says that you're completely wrong! I'm also King of Namibia and my bestie is the Pope. Just take my word for it.