Talk:Lawfare: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Note that the article on [[Human Rights Watch]] describes lawfare as ''the use of international humanitarian law to limit the options of the United States and other nations.'' which isn't really the same as the introduction to this article. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 10:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | Note that the article on [[Human Rights Watch]] describes lawfare as ''the use of international humanitarian law to limit the options of the United States and other nations.'' which isn't really the same as the introduction to this article. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 10:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I suggest, then, that the HRW article change. If it's not clear, lawfare is an additional means of limiting the actions of sovereign states. Certainly, there are U.S. citizens that object to it, but you are just as likely to find China, Israel, Sudan, Rwanda, etc., objecting to it. It does go straight to the issue of there being few if any restrictions on national sovereignty, other than self-imposed ones. The reality is that there are no international governmental bodies with other than moral enforcement ability. Serbia and Kosovo were special cases where nations, or groups of nations, then imposed military sanctions after the legal ones.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) | :I suggest, then, that the HRW article, which I believe started as an Eduzendium student project, change. If it's not clear, lawfare is an additional means of limiting the actions of sovereign states. Certainly, there are U.S. citizens that object to it, but you are just as likely to find China, Israel, Sudan, Rwanda, etc., objecting to it. It does go straight to the issue of there being few if any restrictions on national sovereignty, other than self-imposed ones. The reality is that there are no international governmental bodies with other than moral enforcement ability. Serbia and Kosovo were special cases where nations, or groups of nations, then imposed military sanctions after the legal ones.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:13, 13 September 2010
Help
I am a bit confused by this article. David Finn 09:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note that the article on Human Rights Watch describes lawfare as the use of international humanitarian law to limit the options of the United States and other nations. which isn't really the same as the introduction to this article. David Finn 10:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest, then, that the HRW article, which I believe started as an Eduzendium student project, change. If it's not clear, lawfare is an additional means of limiting the actions of sovereign states. Certainly, there are U.S. citizens that object to it, but you are just as likely to find China, Israel, Sudan, Rwanda, etc., objecting to it. It does go straight to the issue of there being few if any restrictions on national sovereignty, other than self-imposed ones. The reality is that there are no international governmental bodies with other than moral enforcement ability. Serbia and Kosovo were special cases where nations, or groups of nations, then imposed military sanctions after the legal ones.Howard C. Berkowitz 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories:
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Law Developing Articles
- Law Nonstub Articles
- Law Internal Articles
- Politics Developing Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Military Developing Articles
- Military Nonstub Articles
- Military Internal Articles
- Military tag
- International relations tag