More Fiscal Incompetence from the Conservatives

waldo · June 10, 2012

I'm actually growing tired with your idiocy: Russia has claims, if those claims overlap with Canada's claims and Russia deems it beneficial they will win out one way or another. We can have 1 trillion judgements by the ICJ and write up resolution after resolution and they will veto any action by the SC.

you haven't a clue... you were given a clue - you simply refuse to read. As was laid out in greater detail in the other thread (which you ignored), as was mentioned just a few posts back, Russia's Arctic aspirations are being worked through international law channels. This was all laid out with supporting references in the other thread... Russia has a vested interest in respecting Canada's Northwest Passage claim...because it most certainly wants the same consideration given for its similar claim in regards to the Northeast Passage. Do you get this yet... would you like it repeated in bold highlight... coloured, perhaps? Russia is certainly actively working to build it's case for extending upon the adjacent underwater shelf to itself. However, and again, that is following international law channels... regardless of the fabricated boogeyman scenario you've built up around this.

as I said, your continued perverse diversions away from this focal point of discussion show you can't hold an argument... you run from it. Answer this question... don't run from it, hey: will your imaginary Russian boogeyman veto... create international law? :lol:

Anti-Am · June 10, 2012

It is the U.S.A that opposes Canada have control of the NW Passage. Not Russia.

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2012

It is the U.S.A that opposes Canada have control of the NW Passage. Not Russia.

The U.S.A. expects Canada to honor existing international law for transit passage just like any other nation. US and Soviet/Russian submarines have made under ice transits for decades, and all Canada could do about it was give "permission" after the fact.

waldo · June 10, 2012

as I said, Russia just isn't playing into your trumped up boogeyman scenario: not only is Russia most transparent in announcing its current efforts in pursuit of building a scientifically founded case to support its Arctic aspirations, Russia formally announced it's intention to bring it's case forward to have the UN rule upon it. But of course, you trot out the SC permanent members veto card - your boogeyman 'ace-in-the-whole'... which, of course, shows your fabrication has no barriers! The whole point of that little exercise was to get you to see the idiocy of your scenario and just how a, ultimately, veto play made absolutely no sense - in that scenario of yours... not another new one you want to fabricate and play out while conveniently ignoring this one.
so, again, I quite willingly laid out your idiotic boogeyman scenario, the one that gave you your convenient UN slag. The idiotic scenario that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russian claim"... and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what? The question you can't/won't answer, because you know it shows just how ridiculous your fabrications run and the lengths to which you'll take them. If... if... everything lined up to feed into your ultimate Russian SC permanent member veto play, it would mean what? That Russia would veto the fact that international law won't recognize its Arctic aspiration claim? Would your imaginary Russian veto suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim?

Well the Russians would veto any resolution that is passed up by Canada(should it come to that) to enforce a ruling by the ICJ. That means if the Russians present a case to the ICJ, and at the same time they start digging in the contested territory Canada can do nothing but wait for a ruling from the ICJ. Now if it goes in Russia's favour to bad... but if it goes in Canada's favour then we are at the mercy of Russia to comply with the ruling. If Russia determines that there is more benefit in occupying and developing the land in question then they will ignore the ruling... at this point Canada makes a request to the UNSC in the form of a resolution to force Russia to comply this could range from stern warning to an extremely unlikely enforcement through war and everything in between.At this point we will already know the outcome since Russia will shoot any resolution to force them to comply with the courts ruling meaning if the resolution calls for economic sanctions then Russia can veto it and there is NOTHING we can do about that hence Russia is above the law when it concerns the ICJ.

it's been some time since I've seen anyone on MLW with your level of intellectual dishonesty. This whole discussion was about Russia... its Arctic aspirations... and the ridiculous scenario you trumped up around that to presume upon some imagined and nonsensical UNSC veto it would pull out... should it's initial claim not be accepted by the UN - it's claim; Russia's claim. To do what, again?... somehow create international law in it's favour - with some kind of mystical UNSC veto! And now... now... you suddenly introduce the hypothetical "claims from Canada".

out of all this nonsense of yours, your whole premise relies upon Russia not respecting international laws of the sea... none of which is supported by anything Russia has done or is currently doing in regards to related claims (e.g., Arctic, Northeast Passage). Russia has been most transparent in providing information as to what it is currently doing in the Arctic in regards to building a scientific foundation for it's claim... Russia has long ago provided formal notice of its intentions toward bringing its claim through the international law channels. None of this aligns with the crap you're outright fabricating.

in the complete history of the World Court there have been but 3 cases related to jurisdiction of the sea (and 2 of those are between the same 2 countries)... none of these cases has involved Russia. Clearly, the history of the World Court does not support your imagined boogeyman!

Signals.Cpl · June 10, 2012

The U.S.A. expects Canada to honor existing international law for transit passage just like any other nation. US and Soviet/Russian submarines have made under ice transits for decades, and all Canada could do about it was give "permission" after the fact.

Canada gave the US permission to cross at any time they wanted as long as we get a heads up, but we had no way to enforce our ownership and still have no way to enforce it so its useless.

waldo · June 10, 2012

It is the U.S.A that opposes Canada have control of the NW Passage. Not Russia.

exactly... not to show favourites, the U.S. also disputes Russia's claim to the Northeast Passage! Consistency, you know.

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2012

Canada gave the US permission to cross at any time they wanted as long as we get a heads up, but we had no way to enforce our ownership and still have no way to enforce it so its useless.

Didn't matter...the USA was going to cross whenever it felt like it, "heads up" or not. There was a Cold War game being played in your backyard and nobody waited for Canada's permission.

Signals.Cpl · June 10, 2012

you haven't a clue... you were given a clue - you simply refuse to read. As was laid out in greater detail in the other thread (which you ignored), as was mentioned just a few posts back, Russia's Arctic aspirations are being worked through international law channels. This was all laid out with supporting references in the other thread... Russia has a vested interest in respecting Canada's Northwest Passage claim...because it most certainly wants the same consideration given for its similar claim in regards to the Northeast Passage. Do you get this yet... would you like it repeated in bold highlight... coloured, perhaps? Russia is certainly actively working to build it's case for extending upon the adjacent underwater shelf to itself. However, and again, that is following international law channels... regardless of the fabricated boogeyman scenario you've built up around this.

as I said, your continued perverse diversions away from this focal point of discussion show you can't hold an argument... you run from it. Answer this question... don't run from it, hey: will your imaginary Russian boogeyman veto... create international law?

What was the original question? It was wether or not the UN is useful or not, my issue is not with Russia because everything is stacked in their favour. I tried to point out that the UN is irrelevant, its useless because IF it came to a scenario like the one I described Canada will end up loosing while you are trying to claim that it will NEVER come to that. You are basing the UN's worth on an assumption that Russia will never do this therefore we will never have to find out yet when the US proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UN is a useless organization that puts select nations above the law you had nothing to say about that.

You can bury your head in the sand and assume that the problem will never come up because it is beneficial for Russia to use official channels yet you have no guarantee that if those official channels fail to produce results for Russia that they will back down.

Its quite simple, Russia is presenting a case that cannot fail because one way or another if they really wanted to they can force their will on the losing party(Canada) because they control the all important veto in the only avenue of enforcement open to Canada. The Us did the same to Nicaragua, the national interests of the Americans dictated that they shouldn't pay anything and they did not recognize the courts decision, when Nicaragua went to the UNSC they got nowhere because the US blocked all resolutions pertaining to the issue.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

Signals.Cpl · June 10, 2012

exactly... not to show favourites, the U.S. also disputes Russia's claim to the Northeast Passage! Consistency, you know.

So, irrelevant, if either of them decide to do something neither the ICJ nor the UNSC can or will do anything because the law that applies to us and every other non veto nation does not apply to the 5 Veto Powers.

waldo · June 10, 2012

You can bury your head in the sand and assume that the problem will never come up because it is beneficial for Russia to use official channels yet you have no guarantee that if those official channels fail to produce results for Russia that they will back down.

nothing supports your fabrication... your boogeyman scenarios - including the past history of the World Court.

Smallc · June 10, 2012

thieir services are subsidized by alberta. Quebec and much of Canada would be banana republics if it was not able to steal Alberta's prosperity

Canada would still be one of the wealthiest countries on the planet.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Smallc

Signals.Cpl · June 10, 2012

nothing supports your fabrication... your boogeyman scenarios - including the past history of the World Court.

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ

waldo · June 10, 2012

So, irrelevant, if either of them decide to do something neither the ICJ nor the UNSC can or will do anything because the law that applies to us and every other non veto nation does not apply to the 5 Veto Powers.

international law (of the seas, in this discussions regard) applies to all nations. Whether all nations respect it is their prerogative... and other nations, if inclined, can challenge interpreted dispute via the World Court. You know, the World Court with a history that doesn't support your fabrications and Russian boogeyman scenarios.

Smallc · June 10, 2012

international law (of the seas, in this discussions regard) applies to all nations. Whether all nations respect it is their prerogative

:blink:

Signals.Cpl · June 10, 2012

international law (of the seas, in this discussions regard) applies to all nations. Whether all nations respect it is their prerogative... and other nations, if inclined, can challenge interpreted dispute via the World Court. You know, the World Court with a history that doesn't support your fabrications and Russian boogeyman scenarios.

From the F-35 topic:

your assessment of the UN is meaningless and has no bearing, particularly when you fail to recognize the prevailing treaty is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea... relative to sea surface passage from shoreline as well as the extent of resource control related to defined nautical distance from shore or possible continental shelf extensions. As I said, the Russians have been very busy in working to present a scientific founded analysis that presumes to extend their claim to portions of the Arctic... underwater portions they believe will show as extensions to their Eurasian landmass. As I stated, Russia has formally announced it's intention to bring this analysis forward to the UN... they intend to pursue possible "Arctic remapping" relative to the prevailing international treaty... the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

if you're so worried about fostering a false narrative over airspace encroachment and sovereignty, what about the decades of U.S. and Russian submarines traveling quite freely under the Arctic ice? But hey now... if you really have concerns about airspace, what kind of missile defense could we strike up as an alternative to F-35s? Cost???

First my assessment of the UN is based on facts. United Nations resolutions are meaningless unless the US takes notice of them. The Department of Peacekeeping is nothing but a drain of resources. If China, Russia and the US don't agree the UN is powerless as the power is concentrated on 5 nations, 3 of which generally stand together and 2 of which are generally on the other side of all arguments.

Now, on decisions by the world court, the ICJ makes a ruling, and say Russia does not go along with it. What would happen in this case? Well Canada can appeal to the United Nations Security council about Russia's refusal to comply with the ICJ ruling, where a permanent member of the security council can Veto the appeal, oh wait I think Russia has veto power thus we can take it to world court, we win in world court, Russia does not comply with world court decisions, we appeal to the Security council, and guess what Russia can veto any resolution that will force them to comply.

The judgment of the ICJ is binding and (technically) cannot be appealed (arts. 59, 60) once the parties have consented to its jurisdiction and the court has rendered a decision. However, a state's failure to comply with the judgment violates the U.N. Charter, article 94(2). Noncompliance can be appealed to the U.N. Security Council, which may either make recommendations or authorize other measures by which the judgment shall be enforced. A decision by the Security Council to enforce compliance with a judgment rendered by the court is subject to the veto power of permanent members, and thus depends on the members' willingness not only to resort to enforcement measures but also to support the original judgment.

Direct source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/International_Court_of_Justice.aspx

Further Sources:

http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/en/ifaq.pdf

on pg. 39 of the document

http://www.icj-cij.org/information/en/ibleubook.pdf

on pg. 75 of the document

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter14.shtml

Article 27
1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter5

You know what, it doesn't really look that well for Canada if Russia does not comply as well we can once again bring the issue to the security council and the decision would require 9 of the 15 votes, including ALL of the permanent member states( United Kingdom, France, China, United States and Russian Federation). The only chance for us is if Russia votes for us(unlikely), or Russia abstains from the vote, which means we have to pray they boycott the SC.

Just because we don't have the means to stop the submarines does not mean we should give up our ability to defend our airspace.

waldo · June 10, 2012

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ

oh my! .. is that related to international laws of the sea? Not quite sure what body of water and direct locale proximity would support a related international laws of the sea dispute. Can you bring continuity forward in this regard? :lol:

waldo · June 10, 2012

:blink:

Signals.Cpl · June 10, 2012

international law (of the seas, in this discussions regard) applies to all nations. Whether all nations respect it is their prerogative... and other nations, if inclined, can challenge interpreted dispute via the World Court. You know, the World Court with a history that doesn't support your fabrications and Russian boogeyman scenarios.

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ

How did that work out for Nicaragua?

waldo · June 10, 2012

unrelated baffle-gab

like I said, you can't stay on topic... on point.

Smallc · June 10, 2012

I'm saying that your position makes no sense. Either it applies, or it doesn't. If someone can choose to ignore it, it's irrelevant.

Signals.Cpl · June 10, 2012

like I said, you can't stay on topic... on point.

Which is?

waldo · June 10, 2012

international law (of the seas, in this discussions regard) applies to all nations. Whether all nations respect it is their prerogative... and other nations, if inclined, can challenge interpreted dispute via the World Court. You know, the World Court with a history that doesn't support your fabrications and Russian boogeyman scenarios.
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ
How did that work out for Nicaragua?

don't know - don't care... It doesn't have any bearing on this discussions focus on international law (of the seas) and the fabrication/boogeyman scenario you initially laid out. You were challenged to take that distraction and show how it relates... to the topic at hand. Again:

oh my! .. is that related to international laws of the sea? Not quite sure what body of water and direct locale proximity would support a related international laws of the sea dispute. Can you bring continuity forward in this regard?

Signals.Cpl · June 10, 2012

don't know - don't care... It doesn't have any bearing on this discussions focus on international law (of the seas) and the fabrication/boogeyman scenario you initially laid out. You were challenged to take that distraction and show how it relates... to the topic at hand. Again:

Nope, the initial topic not where you dragged it to. The Law is the Law! If you cannot enforce one law, you cannot enforce all law.

waldo · June 10, 2012

I'm saying that your position makes no sense. Either it applies, or it doesn't. If someone can choose to ignore it, it's irrelevant.

of course it applies - that's the essence of international law (of the seas, per this discussion). That doesn't preclude a country, any country, from not respecting a particular international law (of the seas, per this discussion). You know... the World Court... the body intended to deal with disputes... where countries have chosen, on their prerogative, to not respect a particular international law (of the seas, per this discussion).

waldo · June 10, 2012

Nope, the initial topic not where you dragged it to. The Law is the Law! If you cannot enforce one law, you cannot enforce all law.

don't know, don't care what you're talking about... I already emphasized I have no intention of discussing your infatuation with an unrelated World Court dispute.