Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

the following is a few links looking at these complex issues. They are for those interested. They are not presented by me to support or refute anything but as a (possibly) useful background and context to discussions on the cyprus issue. If they do 'prove' anything to me personaly its firstly that the concepts themselves in general terms are complex and the differences btween them often subtle and secondly that as far as their definitons in interantional law go there is even more complexity, even less clarity of defninitions and certainly no single universaly accepted view.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/State

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Nation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

http://geography.about.com/cs/political ... nation.htm

[erolz]

and some views on international law

National Law

It is generally assumed in a nation-state governed through a freely elected, representative democracy, laws enacted and enforced are done so for the benefit of its society: i.e. promoting its general welfare. People of that society, who breach said laws, risk punishment by the government. If apprehended, they are tried, and if found guilty, may be punished. In our system of government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches work together in this function. However, it is recognized that the general law may not always be appropriate in specific situations. The defense of general justification, in criminal law, allows people, at their peril, to break laws in these instances. It is then up to the enforcement or judicial function to determine whether the perpetrator(s) is (are) to be held liable for the breach of law and punished.

International Law

Historically, international law, by comparison, was, and many would argue still is, created by nation-states for the benefit of themselves vis-à-vis other nation-states. Thus, there has been no true altruism at the international law level, i.e. a "world society" did not exist to be the recipient of benefit. It was every nation for itself, promoting itself. Psychological egoism was the norm. "No nation has friends-only interests"3 as the formulary credo for international law. International altruism is a facade, international beneficence a fiction--all such actions are an investment. International "kindness" is extended only when it is determined to be in the extending nations "interest".

from http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:TPEK ... ell95.html

and another definition here

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/International_law

[/quote]

[MicAtCyp]

the following is a few links looking at these complex issues. They are for those interested. They are not presented by me to support or refute anything but as a (possibly) useful background and context to discussions on the cyprus issue. If they do 'prove' anything to me personaly its firstly that the concepts themselves in general terms are complex and the differences btween them often subtle and secondly that as far as their definitons in interantional law go there is even more complexity, even less clarity of defninitions and certainly no single universaly accepted view.

So, what’s their use other than "plex" you more?

[erolz]

So, what’s their use other than "plex" you more?

I find it useful to 'study' issues - the more complex they are the more useful such study is. I guess one could take the approach that if an issue is complex then the only sensible thing to do is to not study it or worry yourself about it - but iuts not an appraoch I personaly take.

I would also mention than for some on the forums it would seem that these issues of what is a nation, a state a nation-state in genral terms and in legal terms and what the differences between 'international law' and 'nationa law' are (and hence the differences between illegality as defined by international law vs national law) are simple , clear cut and balck and white issue. If reading more about these topics helps them to realise that in fact they are not simple or clear cut or universal recognised by all in the same ways - that to me can only help us in trying to resolve the Cyprus issue.

[gabaston]

even if what is law is law, tomorrow can throw up a test case which stands the law on its head.


yesterdays criminals became world leaders, etc etc.
todays terrorist is tomorrows president.
todays president can suddenly become tomorrows criminal.

[Filitsa]

even if what is law is law, tomorrow can throw up a test case which stands the law on its head.

Well, ya, and this in itself is law. It's called precedent law; the mode by
which case law evolves.

yesterdays criminals became world leaders, etc etc.
todays terrorist is tomorrows president.
todays president can suddenly become tomorrows criminal.

Although true, I hope you're not implying that we throw up our hands in dispair.

[gabaston]

implying nothing, simply stating how the law woks, or even works

someone described it as an ass.

i dont write the stuff, nor am i a judge, im simply stating that the law evolves and moulds itself around fresh situations as they present themselves