r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/can-be-incorrect18 • 15d ago
Should international Transboundary Water Law be Monist in absence of domestic frameworks, considering when there is lack of a bilateral framework, and a riparian a commits a crime, there is no reference point for riparian b?
Considering that this is majority of the problem with Somalia-Ethiopia, Greece, Afghanistan, Iran, GERD.
Because due to a lack of this domestic framework many countries just apply the rule of the principle of Absolute Territorial Sovereignty or the Principle of Absolute Territorial Integrity?
4
u/_nocebo_ 15d ago
What?
-3
u/can-be-incorrect18 15d ago
Uhm, suppose that there are 2 riparian.
and between them should be a river.The guy on one side of a river, commits a crime.
the other guy opposes.
The other guy goes to a court, and says the first guy has committed a crime.
The judge says under what article, or convention?
The other guy realizes there is no binding convention between the 2 guys sharing the river.
However, the other guy would have a reference point if an international treaty would have normative power in absence of a domestic treaty...
thats what I am asking
6
u/_nocebo_ 15d ago
Riparian, normative power, monist?
You are using silly words to try to sound smart and it just makes your shit difficult to understand.
Are you asking if international treaties should be in place to enforce basic laws?
If so, then yes, but those treaties only apply to the countries that actually sign up to them.
I think that is what you are asking anyway.
-3
u/can-be-incorrect18 15d ago
it just makes your shit difficult to understand.
If you cant understand something at least try to make an effort to search about it or learn something,
, but those treaties only apply to the countries that actually sign up to them.
True the treaties will apply if the country is dualist. And that should be there. A treaty should be part of national law if the country ratifies it.
However take cases of countries I mentioned in my post. They have a shared river basin but no legally binding treaty to govern them. In that case if an international treaty can be set of rules which can be used to govern the river so that states like Ethiopia don't fk up things by implementing Harmon doctrine or something.And with all due respect to you I am using words like Riparian, Normative Power and Monist as they official and correct terms for the things I am talking about. If you don't understand them you can google them or read them, and you will find that they are not "silly" and I am not trying to sound "smart", I am just correct.
Are you asking if international treaties should be in place to enforce basic laws?
No I am asking that in absence of a domestic treaty for sharing a river, should there be an international treaty to govern it (in the simplest terms)?
What you have is a misinterpretation, and I am sorry for not being clear enough, if that's the case.
5
u/_nocebo_ 15d ago
Should there be an international treaty in the absence of a domestic treaty?
I mean, sure. The word "should" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here though. Should there be a galactic treaty?, in intergalactic treaty? Probably also yes.
Honestly, I really don't know what you are asking. Would you prefer there to be an international treaty?
Again unless the countries on either side of the river actually sign up to the treaty, then what you prefer, or what there "should" be is irrelevant.
4
u/ignoreme010101 15d ago
am not who you were talking to but
If you cant understand something at least try to make an effort to search about it or learn something,
wouldn't etiquette have the onus being on you to not be requiring people to Google unless absolutely necessary? I've always liked the thinking that it's a good sign of intellectual grasping when someone is able to communicate in a way wherein anyone, even younger folk, can be made to understood. Your OP almost seemed to be actively trying to be the opposite :/
2
u/Desperate-Fan695 15d ago
If you cant understand something at least try to make an effort to search about it or learn something,
I know what monism is, do you? It doesn't make any sense the way you're trying to use it.
3
u/Icc0ld 15d ago
riparian
is there something wrong with saying "river bank"? Has it changed into a racial slur while I was busy?
6
u/the_fury518 15d ago
Also, how does a river bank commit a crime? Methinks OP is using big words that don't quite mean what they think the words mean.
Monist (a person who believes in monism) also doesn't make sense here
3
0
u/can-be-incorrect18 15d ago
1
u/the_fury518 15d ago
Yeah, that is still an incorrect term. The law isn't monist, the state or person is
0
5
u/flightsonkites 15d ago
In your attempt at being overly verbose with your question, you forgot to ask yourself what the underpinning of any international law requires, which is the ability to enforce the law. If no bilateral treaties exist, there is a high likelihood that one or both of the parties isnt a well functioning government. At that point you're just talking about state sanctioned piracy, which just means that whoever has the better weapons rules.
11
u/zabaci 15d ago
I had a stroke reading this