sorry, i forgot the source

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

they can rule against them in an international tribunal

The Philippines' attempt to haul China to an international tribunal is a problem because it is invoking the very compulsory jurisdiction which China has disavowed since 2006. But even if the Philippine attempt to arbitrate fails, any marshaled argument can subsist, and that case may be fielded in other venues. If a military engagement were to ensue, the same case could be brought to the United Nations Security Council -- the principal repository of enforcement powers under the UN system. A state can be found to be in violation of a substantive legal norm even without a coercive or compulsory judgment in a given venue, provided, of course, that there is truth to the argument supporting a violation, and that it is acknowledged by an alternative venue.

While China is disavowing the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) against the Philippines, it is expressly invoking UNCLOS provisions in its claims against Japan -- so it wants to have its cake and eat it, too. In 2009, China submitted a claim over the Senkaku Islands (which, like Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys, are believed to be fuel rich) and turned to UNCLOS rules in defining and delineating its continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone, again within the meaning of UNCLOS. There is some international legal doctrine supporting the view that a state's acts in one place can be used as an admission and adversely bind that State in another set of circumstances.

a legal claim against china won't make the han imperialists move, but the ruling will stay dormant

then, after any sort of conflict in the future where china loses, china is going to lose these islands in the peace treaty

this is an interesting, informative, and comprehensive post

mod +6

thank you

perhaps

and here you are, reading and responding

you are what you hate

good, glad to entertain, that's the right attitude

usually, if someone is not nice to you, you avoid them. are you a masochist? do you crave social contact so badly abuse is acceptable?

if you see a comment of mine, don't read it. and don't respond to it. is this concept too complicated and confusing for you?

It is a private agreement between the French and a corporate entity.

wow! really? did you read the fucking sentence right after the one you quoted genius?

I have no idea what you are talking about with "music sharing" since I never mentioned it once. I'm going to assume you are trolling at this point.

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

What a laugh. They can certainly do so. All they need to do is ask Google and Google needs to agree to it in order for it to happen. DMCA requests to Google already expunge data from Google IN ALL COUNTRIES, not just the US.

any other help you need today moron?

at this point i have to conclude you're just trolling me

i'm not a nice person. and this is not couple's therapy

if someone says something stupefyingly dumb (on a "news for nerds" website no less), they deserve to be pilloried

i understand the concept of educating the ignorant patiently. but then there is stupidity so amazing there is no hope

prideful ignorance exists in this world. it resists logic reason and patience. such stupidity needs to be attacked for the cancer it is (irony intended). blind and dumb people actually cause real damage in this world

Um, no. I never said that. Read it again. And use caps.

i understand exactly what you said. and i additionally understand that your comment does not address the actual topic. i will use caps just as soon as you actually try to understand the fucking topic in front of you, and then commenting

furthermore, to actually follow you down your lame red herring topic change, just to completely show your idiocy (as if you confusing music sharing with "right to be forgotten" didn't do that effectively enough):

you don't think that all sorts of countries twist the arms of all sorts of multinationals for all sorts of lame reasons already? that's just corporate life. this isn't new or even noteworthy

the hard line, the important point, is that the sovereignty of a *country*'s laws is not subjugated to the fickle bullshit of another country's ignorant laws

of course governments often go into treaties and agree on limited exceptions to their sovereign laws. these situations are narrow and up for constant review. that's fine too

but i can guarantee you no US government is going to respect French requests to censor based on this useless "right to be forgotten" band aid, ever. the request will be laughed at and waved out of the room, as it should be

finally, if france does kick out google, the usa reciprocates against french companies operating in the usa for the fickle bullshit of a logically incoherent and invalid law. so france won't do it, or they will hear from their influential multinationals

any questions? any other remedial hand holding you need today on this topic?

it is a moral issue

and france has the wrong understanding of the topic and the immoral position

additionally, if france does kick out google, the usa reciprocates against french companies operating in the usa for the fickle bullshit of a logically incoherent and invalid law

news like this makes me so mad. because it demonstrates something wonderful we as a civilization have achieved time and again. something that should be applauded and celebrated and championed:

1. disease, unfair deaths

2. science, hard work by intelligent people

3. vaccine, innocent lives saved

it's obvious, straightforward, undeniable, a wonderful good

against that we have prideful ignorance, that continues to claim the lives of innocent children and others, simply because of their various paranoid conspiracy theories, lies, and petulant low iq

in a just world, those who don't vaccinate die from ebola

in the real world, those who do vaccinate protect those who do not, and when the herd immunity breaks down, because of the unvaccinated, the vulnerable innocent and the unlucky few who got a vaccine but it didn't take hold, also die

objectively, based on the content of what you just wrote, you are a moron. not a baseless insult, an accurate characterization of the content of your thoughts, to be someone who wrote what you just wrote

which is fine. but we're talking about the law of sovereign countries

you don't think that all sorts of countries twist the arms of all sorts of multinationals for all sorts of lame reasons already?

that's just corporate life

the hard line, the important point, is that the sovereignty of a *country*'s laws is not subjugated to the fickle bullshit of another country's ignorant laws

of course governments often go into treaties and agree on limited exceptions to their sovereign laws. these situations are limited, narrow, and up for constant review. that's fine too. nothing's perfect

but i can guarantee you no US government is going to respect French requests to censor based on this useless "right to be forgotten" band aid, ever. the request will be laughed at and waved out of the room, as it should be

we have different definitions of what is better and right then

there is no "rule by rumor". there are indeed weak minded and weak willed gossip victims who will judge people based on rumors. which will always exist. the proper response is to disregard such individuals. don't date someone who would judge you based on teenaged hijinks or don't work for a company that judges you based on nude pictures released against your authorization

the proper response to such weak individuals is to sue them because their "judgment" is invalid. of course you can't sue someone who doesn't want to date you (in fact, they are doing you a favor by removing themselves from consideration after judging you for stupid crap), but you can bring action against the company that wouldn't hire you for example for unsubstantiated crap

what is definitely not better or right, but you seem to support, is to elevate venomous gossip hounds to protected status, that their "judgments" have power and respect. for example, the vicious woman who would judge you and drop you because of something stupid you did as a teenager is now *NOT* removed from your dating pool, and you wind up dating or marrying them. now your life is hell. or you work for a petty vindictive and overly judgmental shallow boss. you've removed the real protection from such vile people by protecting their weak and invalid judgments, by giving them power and authority and saying you have to hide and run in shame about the foibles that are in everyone's life. rather than simply defying their cruel bullshit and disregarding or rejecting their presence in your life