Outside of the socialist-Continental paradise of Europe, the rest of the world is still largely run by realists managing a collectivity known as a state. The nation state embodies for good or ill, the will of a population. The benefits of the nation state are clear including one important factor. Outside of trade agreements, military pacts, and diplomatic regimes, national laws, constitutions and domestic agreements always triumph over the international. Always. And such a claim is usually embedded in the Constitutions of the nation state. So it goes for Globaloney Warming. The entire concept of ceding sovereignty to the UN, without a democratic referendum is utterly illegal.
Trans-nationalism or Globalism is a movement of the Left. It is Marxist, Communalist and designed to neuter domestic laws and Constitutions. The UN is the usual vehicle of such aspirations. Various UN agencies from the Human Rights Commission, to the IPCC or Climate Change Committee, to the evi lly named 'Center for Reproductive Law and Policy' (CRLP which advocates state paid abortion) abound. In fact CRLP has tried to sue the US into funding unfettered, state paid abortion [thrown out in a New York court] � due to its claim that such an ideal was 'international law'. These UN groups are always looking for more power. Hence the IPCC's moronic claim that Co2 causes 'warming'. Is there a better way to control nation states than to declare a natural chemical a toxin and have the UN 'solve the problem'?
It does not take a Harvard Law degree or the brilliance of a mind like that of the Black Jesus, to see 'international law' for what it is � a game, a gimmick by socialists and trans-nationalists to neuter the nation state.
Thus the ridiculous claims for example, by wailing Leftards, that Israel is in constant violation of international law by building an apartment on some desolate guano covered hillock on the 'West Bank'. There is of course no codified 'i nternational law' and certainly no internationally agreed upon set of statutes which are applied equally to Arabs and Israelis. When Hamas launches rockets into Jewish day care centers it is a clear breach of the cease-fire agreement between the two parties. As such the Israeli Defence Forces have every moral, military and legal imperative to react. International law � outside of clear and binding agreements on trade, military pacts and rules of engagement in war and diplomacy between two clear actors or states � is a fantasy. It simply does not exist.
The only laws which are international and which are binding are those between states - not those signed by states inside an international fora such as the UN. The only legal international agreements are those which are clear, codified and address a certain function � trade, military agreements, refugees, foreign aid perhaps � and which give the signing state in question the ability to withdraw, amend the agreement to conform to its constitution, or the ability to reform the agreement if and when democratic positions within that state change.
In other words international law in the abstract, cannot exist, if it denies that the legal organizing principle of all matters of legality, reside with the residents of the nation state.
The UN for example cannot go into Holland and impose its version of 'Human Rights' on the Dutch. It will however, write simpleton 'reports' which criticize the Dutch handling of say Somalian refugees; but it cannot pass a resolution orde ring for instance restitution and larger welfare paid homes for said refugees and expect the Dutch to comply. Such a UN action is by itself illegal and would transgress UN statutes.
So witness the idiocy of Globaloney Warming. Here we have little corrupt minds � most of them far left in their political orientation � meeting in Copenhagen and in the future, in other exotic locales, making up nonsense about controlling and reducing carbon and energy usage. But a basic question is never asked by the unwashed dirty peasant mass to its superiors and betters. Where is the legality and constitutionality of such a project ? Since when can a politician or a group of self-serving bureaucrats agree to UN inspired legislation which will have a deleterious impact on the local political-economy and which directly cedes sovereignty to an unaccountable and unelected body outside of any national control ?
Trade treaties for instance are always under the control of some national deliberative body and in the case of tribunals subject to national input and control. There are also well defined 'escape' clauses from agreements like NATO, NAFTA, and even the EU. The exit clause is open to national prerogative, no matter how painful.
But with Globaloney Warming there is no assurance of any of these safeguards. Kyoto and now Copenhagen are far different than existing and accountable treaties on trade or military alliances. They are not clear and precise agreements but vague and binding commitments on reducing energy usage and carbon emissions. Since there is no science and no rational for this the agreements must be viewed for what they are, namely; the domestic and international imposition of a huge panoply of energy taxes; and the ceding of national political-economy authority at least in part, to the UN.
It is clear that Globaloney Warming agreements would be illegal since they would be an imposed and undemocratic international accord, an d one which tries to nullify domestic laws and constitutions. The only way that Copenhagen could be declared even remotely legal, is if the nation state in-toto supported it, in a referendum. This referendum would need to also change national laws and perhaps even the national constitution, to allow the UN to have control over some part of the domestic political-economy. Without such a national ratification any international treaty designed to reduce carbon emissions would be illegal.
Most 'scholars' and 'academics' would of course disagree with the above. But they are part of the problem. Legal 'experts' are overwhelmingly of the Leftard persuasion. They hate for example, that the US constitution allows the Americans to ignore these meaningless treaties � most of which like Kyoto are rejected by the US Senate anyways.
But the transnationalist agenda is pretty clear. By using the UN and the fear-mongering issued by its various NGO organs on certain issues, the transnationalist hopes to effectively bring domestic laws and constitutions under the umbrella of the UN and international accords. By so doing the nation state will be rendered powerless � paving the way for a Global government which is precisely the point behind Globaloney Warming.
So we can agree on two things. First, what is going on in Copenhagen and around Globaloney Warming qua international agreements is not only immoral, but illegal. Second, the real goal of those who support the illegality of 'international law' is to reduce the nation state and in particular the ability of America, to act independently. Why any sentient, freedom loving person would be supportive of such a crass, vulgar and insipid plan is beyond comprehension. But then again, millions of dunces do believe in Globaloney Warming and there are 1.6 billion Muslims world wide supporting the moon cult of Mecca. The human is probably not as rational as we would pretend to believe.