Best international law books according to redditors

We found 122 Reddit comments discussing the best international law books. We ranked the 57 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Foreign & International Law:

u/squ34m15h_0551fr4g3 · 147 pointsr/brexit

If we leave without a deal, then everything will be up for grabs. We will have no chips to bargain with. To stop the UK haemorrhaging jobs and money, we'll be desperate to accept anything that is offered. The NHS will simply not survive.

You might call this project fear, but I don't see how no-deal could turn out much different. Leave campaigners predicted long queues of countries competing for trade deals with the UK the day after the referendum, but nothing of the sort ever happened. The reality will be much worse. This is from Ian Dunt's 2016 book:

>Ahead of talks, the UK prime minister and the US president hold a joint press conference. Theresa May says it shows countries are still keen to trade with the UK, while her American counterpart confirms the US commitment to the special relationship. Then the doors of the negotiating room close and the two leaders are replaced by grim-faced trade experts.
>
>Britain had a chronic shortage of negotiators during the EU talks and the situation has not improved. The ones facing the American team are those who are not required to fight the fires at the WTO. Many are civil servants who have had to read up on trade in the years since Brexit. They face highly specialised trade experts who have been doing this their entire careers.
>
>The public rhetoric disappears. It is replaced by hard-headed demands. US trade officials inform their British counterparts of the reality of the situation. The UK is in a position of unique and historic vulnerability. Investor confidence has dissolved. Its economy is facing its most significant shock since the Second World War. It has no time. It has no negotiating capacity. But Washington wants to help. It is prepared to rush a trade deal through Congress. It could take less than two years. But for this to be achievable, the UK needs to accept all of its demands. The Americans slide a piece of paper across the desk. The British team read the demands: they are horrendous. Consumer protections are reduced across the board, along with environmental regulations and safeguards for the NHS.
>
>UK civil servants have little option but to capitulate. The only way to protect what remains of the British economy is to sell off British sovereignty. The control wrestled from Brussels is now sold off to the highest bidder, behind closed doors, in a conference room in Washington.

u/metast · 119 pointsr/worldnews

Verhofstadt is a euro extremist - in a sense that in 2012 he published European Manifesto where he is calling for abandoning nation states parliaments and replace these with the European Parliament, bring more immigrants from Arabic countries, etc.
https://www.amazon.com/Europe-Guy-Verhofstadt/dp/1479261882/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485788228&sr=1-6&keywords=verhofstadt
“Europe must once and for all get rid of the navel gazing of its nation-states. A radical revolution is needed. A large European revolution. And a European federal Union must emerge. A Union that enables Europe to participate in the postnational world of tomorrow.

u/Known_and_Forgotten · 95 pointsr/worldnews

A minor note of contention, Gaddafi wasn't a dictator let alone even the leader of Libya when he died. He hadn't held formal office since early in the 70's shortly after the bloodless coup.

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

The cult of personality that sprung up around Gaddafi was largely because he was idolized among many Libyans due to the prosperity and progress he helped facilitate, though he did play into this image as 'folk' hero' and used it to his advantage to promote Libya quite well.

Some important context to keep in mind is that prior to the Green Revolution, Libya was a monarchy and Libyans were used to having a prominent central governing figure, a king, before the peaceful coup in '69. So it was only natural that the public would depict Gaddafi in a similar way.

Little different than the US equivalent of George Washington.

Gaddafi was so loved for the reforms he created that many Libyans honored his contribution by calling him the 'brother leader'. It was a fitting informal title because he was not the officially recognized leader but he was highly revered among Libyans.

Ultimately, Gaddafi was merely a statesman and adviser to the system of direct democracy known as 'Jamahiriya' that he helped create, and it is a tragic irony that he was doomed in some ways by the very adoration of his fellow Libyans.

Gaddafi and the Libyan government had even been slated to receive a reward from the UN just prior to the bombing of Libya for their economic and social progress and for their commitment to human rights. (See the following link)

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

On 01-07-2011, over 1 million peaceful Libyans came out to support the Libyan Government and to protest the NATO bombing of Libya:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeAIQSQp58A

The following link is probably the most comprehensive account documenting the Islamic fundamentalist nature of the Libyan rebels I have seen on the web and the efforts by the US and it's European and Saudi allies to subvert and undermine the Libyan Jamahiriya.

Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3504

Another great reference is a book called 'Destroying Libya and World Order'. Written by Francis Anthony Boyle, professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, who also served as legal council to Libya and filed lawsuits on Libya's behalf against the US with the World Court (he won both trials against the US); It details the Reagan and Bush administration's violent provocation of Libya during the 80's, all the way up until the 2011 US/NATO backed destabilization.

http://www.amazon.com/Destroying-Libya-World-Order-Three-Decade/dp/0985335378

(cont.)

u/returned_from_shadow · 17 pointsr/worldnews

The guy didn't win shit for compensation for Lockerbie, the Libyan government paid extortion money compensation to have unjust sanctions removed. There is no direct link tying the Lockerbie bombing to the Libyan government, never was, never has been.

The continued lies and propaganda surrounding the event need to end.

The government of Libya and Gaddafi were highly cooperative with the investigation. One of the men accused was acquitted, and the key witnesses in Megrahi's case were bribed with three million dollars by the United States for their testimony. And then there is this:

After five years of secrecy, today we publish the full report that could have cleared the Lockerbie 'bomber'

Published on 25 March 2012

Lucy Adams

Relevant excerpt from article:

>The Sunday Herald and its sister paper, The Herald, are the only newspapers in the world to have seen the report. We choose to publish it because we have the permission of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, and because we believe it is in the public interest to disseminate the whole document.

>The Sunday Herald has chosen to publish the full report online today at www.heraldscotland.com to allow the public to see for themselves the evidence which could have resulted in the acquittal of Megrahi. Under Section 32 of the Data Protection Act, journalists can publish in the public interest.

Additionally, the following well sourced comment refutes the official Lockerbie bombing story and was originally posted by u/Lard_Baron:

>The BBC always raised an eyebrow at his conviction. If the trial had been in the UK in front of a jury he would of walked.

>They made a play based on transcript of the trial and interviewed key players willing to speak. They repeated the broadcast last week. Lockerbie on Trial

>His conviction stank. The UN observer thought the conviction politically motived. The witness's were extremely iffy. The main witness against him, Abdul Majid Giaka, had nothing to say about him. Then the CIA dangled the offer of a new life in the US and a car hire business and he suddenly remembered seeing explosive in Megrahi's desk and him talking about blowing a plane up......

>All the players interviewed by the BBC, including the victims relatives thought that very odd. They thought some of the witnesses against him where guiltier and doubted his guilt.

>You can listen to it here. It changed my mind on the conviction.

>An interview with the father of one of the victims

Also there is this additional personal account by one of the family members of a victim left in a review for the book 'Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade U.S. Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution':

>My 19 year old daughter was murdered on board Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Almost from the outset we have felt that our politicians (British and American) were not being honest with us and that Libya was, for some reason, being used as the scapegoat. I attended the whole of the trial and 1st appeal in Holland and the 2nd appeal in Scotland and that feeling was only confirmed. I came away from the trial feeling about 90% convinced that justice had not been done and that the judicial system had been manipulated by the Politicians. Thank you, Mr. Boyle, for providing yet more solid evidence to show that we were right all the time.

>In November 1991 I was in the USA and was asked by a TV news team who I thought was guilty of my daughter's murder. I replied, "My daughter is dead because of US foreign policy. Whether you believe the official version of the guilt of Libya or that it was a reprisal for the downing of the Iranian airbus by the Vincennes, it was a revenge strike for US agression. It is the arrogance of power." I then added, "But you US policy makers will never be half as good at that as we British have been - we had over 300 years practice!!!".

>How right I was all those years ago.

>John F. Mosey - Father of Helga (aged 19) who was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie.

The US has had it out for Libya for decades, ever since the Bloodless Coup of '69 and the institution of a Socialist leaning government which nationalized Libya's oil industry (which the Libyan Jihadist rebels made deals with the French to control).

The book Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade U.S. Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution written by Francis Anthony Boyle, professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, who also served as legal council to Libya and filed lawsuits on Libya's behalf against the US with the World Court (he won both trials against the US), will give you a good idea of how reasonable and restrained Gaddafi and Libya was.

A preview of the book provides a brief overview of US aggression towards Libya:

>After the Bush Senior administration came to power, in late 1991 they opportunistically accused Libya of somehow being behind the 1988 bombing of the Pan American jet over Lockerbie, Scotland. I advised Libya on this matter from the very outset. Indeed, prior thereto I had predicted to Libya that they were going to be used by the United States government as a convenient scapegoat over Lockerbie for geopolitical reasons. Publicly sensationalizing these allegations,in early 1992 President Bush Senior then mobilized the U.S. Sixth Fleet off the coast of Libya on hostile aerial and naval maneuvers in preparation for yet another military attack exactly as the Reagan administration had done repeatedly throughout the 1980s. I convinced Colonel Qaddafi to let us sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague over the Lockerbie bombing allegations; to convene an emergency meeting of the World Court; and to request the Court to issue the international equivalent of temporary restraining orders against the United States and the United Kingdom that they not attack Libya again as they had done before. After we had filed these two World Court lawsuits, President Bush Senior ordered the Sixth Fleet to stand down. There was no military conflict between the United States and Libya. There was no war. No one died. A tribute to international law, the World Court, and their capacity for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Pursuant to our World Court lawsuits, in February of 1998 the International Court of Justice rendered two Judgments against the United States and the United Kingdom that were overwhelmingly in favor of Libya on the technical jurisdictional and procedural elements involved in these two cases. It was obvious from reading these Judgments that at the end of the day Libya was going to win its World Court lawsuits against the United States and the United Kingdom over the substance of their Lockerbie bombing allegations. These drastically unfavorable World Court Judgments convinced the United States and the United Kingdom to offer a compromise proposal to Libya whereby the two Libyan nationals accused by the U.S. and the U.K. of perpetrating the Lockerbie bombing would be tried before a Scottish Court sitting in The Hague, the seat of the World Court. Justice was never done. This book tells the inside story of why not.

u/billy_tables · 12 pointsr/ukpolitics

It's the constitutional difference between the US and the UK. "The state has rights onto the people" means there are some things the government simply cannot do legally and cannot change without rewriting its constitution. In the UK, parliament can do anything it wants, period. In practice it doesn't make a difference, but in history it's a huge difference between the language of the two governments. If you're genuinely interested, just read this. https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/014103453X/

Edit to make it more explicit: The idea of parliament doing anything by permission of the voters is an incredibly un-British one. Parliament does not govern by permission of the voters, it governs by royal prerogative. It governs because it is sovereign. It needs no permission from voters now, nor has it ever.

u/chickensandwiche · 7 pointsr/ukpolitics

Hannan has always wanted a swiss model based on bilateral accords. He wrote an entire book outlining his position.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Vote-Leave-Daniel-Hannan/dp/1784977101

https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/141210110634-BritainandtheEUasolution.pdf

u/deadcatdidntbounce · 6 pointsr/uklaw

Sadly, we are all forced to make choices about our life before we are equipped with the knowledge or experience to make those choices.

I think you've got solicitor and barrister a bit confused (ignoring solicitor advocates for now).

Lawyers interpret, represent and manipulate statute, caselaw and the "facts" for their clients. Both caselaw and statute are freely published, and the case law is far more fruity.

You might wish to start reading some of the case law and transcripts. Bailli is a fair start but can be dry.

Autobiography of some of the greats can be more fun. Michael Mansfield's auto is good, but he does become an arrogant arse regularly.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/014103453X is certainly regularly recommended is and it's also quite cheap.

Anyone can learn the law. Few can "make use of" the facts to establish a winning case. Concentrate on getting acquainted with the world and how it really works for that insight.

Travel and being among their peoples will help enormously - why people put themselves in situations (forming a business, falsely accused of a crime, protecting something of "value" against the state and other people).

u/ub3rm3nsch · 5 pointsr/IsraelPalestine

The Member States of the United Nations - an international organization - recognize borders by recognizing States. Hence, why I said:

> the international community does in fact determine borders.

Here is how that happens.

The UN as an organization enforces and protects those borders. This takes place in a variety of ways.

If you want to understand more about how States became the primary political actor that make rules vis-a-vis each other, this book will help you learn more about that.

If you'd like to learn more about how States use and delegate power to International Organizations in order to solve international problems, this book will help you do that.

If you'd like to learn more about how the UN System works to enforce borders, this book will help you do that.

Someone posted a website where you can find free books on the non-politics thread. You can probably find pdf copies of each of these books (though personally I just keep them on my shelf to read in a more tangible form and for quick reference).

u/betel · 3 pointsr/LawSchool

Your question is not very specific. Are you talking about Jus Cogens? Human rights norms? International Humanitarian Law? Treaty law? Conflict of laws? Do you just want a primer on international law generally?

Here's a casebook and an E&E on the subject, but that's probably not quite what you're looking for?

u/Reaps51 · 3 pointsr/SargonofAkkad

I've noticed a lot of people asking this, and the OP hasn't replied. I've also noticed different photos of the same page circulating the internet (sometimes in very unexpected fashions), so it has got to be from something out there

​

So, after a little bit of sleuthing, I'm 90% certain it's from this book - you can even see in the table of contents that "figure three" is titled "don't take no for an answer"

​

You can also find a rather comprehensive list of EU-related referendums here

u/agfa12 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Ummm... like I said, an actual university law professor who specializes in nonproliferation law and has written books like "Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" Oxford University Press; 1 edition (July 21, 2011) http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Nuclear-Non-Proliferation-Treaty-Daniel/dp/0199227357

You can believe whomever you want but like I said, the IAEA report itself does not say Iran had a nuclear weapons program; you're just taking some reporter's version

u/thelasian · 3 pointsr/geopolitics

You can argue what you wish but international law is not open to dispute on this point. Non-aggression is the most fundamental international norm. It is embodied in the UN Charter which has a Universal character, meaning that no other treaty or law or norm can violate the UN Charter. Even countries that had not ratified the Charter are bound by it as Customary lnternational law

>the deeply invested norm of non-aggression applies to every state

p.68

Understanding International Law
By Conway W. Henderson
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-International-Law-Conway-Henderson-ebook/dp/B007VJULM0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494355945&


And yes I know the difference between law and norm. The prohibition of aggression is not just law, not just a conventional norm, not just a customary norm but also a preemptory norm and as such as recognized in articles 53 and 64 of the Vienana Convention 1969 such norms are of such a fundamental character, such that no derogation from it is allowed even by treaty. The prohibition of torture is also a preemptory norm of interenational law from which no derogation is allowed http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/15/1/349.pdf

The same goes for for example, the prohibition of genocide, which the US did by backing Saddam as he was massacring Kurds.

These things are absolutely prohibited, everywhere, all the time, regardless of any other circumstances

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/de
u/fdeckert · 3 pointsr/geopolitics

Uh oh, someone is pretending to be an international arms control lawyer on reddit and doesn't know who he's talking to.

>ocol. Iran's Safeguards Agreement from 1974 included a provision in Article 73 that allows the IAEA to inspect any site if they believe Iran's explanations and information furnished does not meet the standards of honesty and accuracy required





Ummm please stop making up total BS and acting like you know what you're talking about when you quite obviously do not.



This is not at all the case and you have nothing to back such a bs claim.



Allow me to educate you a bit.

https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0199377898

The NPT and the IAEA are two separate things. The IAEA is not a nuclear weapons police force in charge of finding hidden nuclear weapons programs, it is just another international organization in charge of promoting nuclear power by setting stadnards etc.

The NPT requires signatories to maintain safeguards with the IAEA (the one Iran signed in 1974 was the standard as that signed by other countries) and under the terms of this safeguards agreement you cited -- had you actually read it and understood it you'd see this -- the role of the IAEA is

EXCLUSIVELY to measure the amount of nuclear material and compare it to the countries declarations to ensure that there has been no diversion of nuclear material to non-peaceful uses which the IAEA has certified to be the case in every single IAEA report on Iran, ever.

So I suggest you educate yourself before spouting total nonsense


http://lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/index.htm

Iran supports Hezbollah, a legitimate Lebanese political party that won massive support in parliamentary elections there
Iran backed Nelson Mandela when the US had labeled him a terrorist and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to tthe racist apartheid regime in S Africa, so what's your point?

And ps there's no distinction between "private financiers" and the Saudi officials when it comes to state money there.

As for BS claims that Iran backed the Taliban or militias in Iraq

>"There were parts coming from Iran, there was parts also coming from other countries" said Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche. "I cannot say from what I see on the ground that Iran is behind that." http://www.ctvnews.ca/top-general-says-no-evidence-iran-behind-ieds-1.269717

Even US Sec Def Gates said he didn't have proof implicating Irans' govt in arming the Taliban

>"We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it is smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSFLE35878420070604

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html

Top US General: No Evidence Iran Arming Iraqis http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17129144/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-general-no-evidence-iran-arming-iraqis/

Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq Arms link http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/23/world/fg-iraniraq23/2

The US even refused Iranian cooperation over Al Qaeda

>Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested ... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-gave-us-help-on-al-qaeda-after-9-11/

Iran even offered to give BinLadin's son to the US but the Bush admin refused

>http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html

u/tyke-of-yorkshire · 3 pointsr/unitedkingdom

> Never mind that the Brexiters never had a plan

I hear this all the time, but what sort of thing were you expecting from the Brexiteers?

An extended discussion paper perhaps? Well there's the "Blueprint for Britain", published by the IEA after a competition.

https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Brexit%20Entry%20170_final_bio_web.pdf

Is that too short and not enough detail? Prefer something from a think tank? Well how about the Flexcit plan, a 400-page document going into detail about trade requirements?

www.eureferendum.com/Flexcit.aspx

Would you rather have something by a politician, ideally a Leave Campaigner? Well Dan Hannan, one of the Vote Leave board, wrote a detailed case for what a post-Brexit Britain should look like in his latest book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Vote-Leave-Daniel-Hannan/dp/1784977101

Of course, these are just plans written by campaigners and not a formal one by an elected government. That obviously couldn't happen under the previous pro-Remain administration, but is being done right now under direction by Theresa May. I genuinely don't know what else they should have had.

u/hipsterparalegal · 2 pointsr/books

Yeah, Harold Berman's Law and Revolution is one of the titans: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Formation-Western-Legal-Tradition/dp/0674517768

I've read chunks of the Berman book and it's great. Lots of medieval history too.

I also have a copy of this one: http://www.amazon.com/History-Common-Law-Anglo-American-Institutions/dp/0735562903/

The problem with that book is that it's a 6 pound brick so it's a chore just holding the damn thing. (BTW, you'll notice it's expensive, but if you have access to a university library, you can probably get it through interlibrary loan. I paid $50 for a used copy.)

u/theironlamp · 2 pointsr/neoliberal

Can't really be arsed arguing with someone who deliberately mischaracterises the other side (although I'm not even a brexiteer) so i'll just link articles and books you should read. This, This and this.

Fundamentally the EU has repeatedly resisted attempts at reform and mostly governs in an attempt to preserve itself rather than improve the lives of its citizens and the global poor. Frankly its sad that this is Europe's attempts at a common market because it is badly structured, badly run and resistant to reform. My hope is that Britain leaving finally kicks some sense into those running it but frankly its unlikely.

u/amazon-converter-bot · 1 pointr/FreeEBOOKS

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

u/TheInternetCat · 1 pointr/IAmA

I knew you'd be back!

"I'm not persuaded" versus "If we're being technical, it may be more accurate..." Which is more of a feeling again?

Even if you had "every dictionary ever created" on your desk, and consulted them all, it would not outweigh the contents of book I linked, which I have on my desk (along with this one). So, no, yours was sillier.

Ok, your turn to spout some more nonsense in-between quotes from earlier in the conversation. Careful to avoid the substance of the actual dispute at hand though.

u/SKZCartoons · 1 pointr/LabourUK

I will try, but it is fairly complex. Corrections welcomed.

A great overview of all this stuff is in "Brexit: What the hell happens now?" by Ian Dunt. Recommended reading.

Overview


The Single Market and the Customs Union put together are a bunch of countries who collaborate to allow each other to buy and sell goods without any interference. Just as Birmingham and Glasgow are able to trade within the UK just by driving the goods from A to B, so France and Germany can trade within the EU (all EU countries are member of both the SM and the CU).

The Single Market


Interference (also called "trade barriers" or "friction") which exist outside the EU includes stuff like tariffs (taxes on goods that are imported to the market), quotas (only allowing a maximum amount of goods in), and compliance checks.

The Single Market is concerned with Compliance Checks, and the Customs Union is concerned with tariffs and quotas.

Compliance checks mean (for example) that if you want to sell a vacuum cleaner in the EU, it has to conform to the EU regulations. Maximum power consumption, maybe. Various safety standards.

To get your vacuum cleaner certified as conforming to all the EU regulations takes time and costs a lot. You have to pay an authorised body to make the checks and get it certified.

Then, when your vacuums arrive at the border, Customs officers are going to open the lorry and check that they are what you have said they are on the shipping manifest. This also takes time. They might also send one machine off for testing, to make sure you really are complying. Otherwise smugglers could just send any old thing through, once they got certified.

Your goods can be delayed for days or even weeks due to border checks.

The Single Market allows France to send goods to Poland (for example) without the lorry being stopped even once for such checks. The goods are assumed to be compliant with all EU rules and regulations because they originate within the Single Market. The lorry just sails on through.

Though that is also, in part, due to the Customs Union.

The Customs Union


The Customs Union is the way that the EU deals with tariffs on goods coming in to the Single Market from non-EU countries (as opposed to goods travelling around inside the market, between France and Poland).

All the countries in the Single Market have to impose the same tariffs on goods that come from outside. Otherwise, if Ireland charged 5% on (say) Chinese tea, but France charged 10%, suppliers would send all their tea to Ireland and then transport it (via the single market - with no lorry stops) to France. They can then sell it cheaper in France than they should be able to.

So France makes sure that they have the same tariff as Ireland.

Quotas (maximum amount allowed to be imported) are also shared. The EU (as a body) might agree with the USA that the EU will impose a 2% tariff on American air conditioners, and there will be a quota of 10,000 per year. US companies can then sell 10,000 air con units to the countries in the Customs Union. Anywhere in it. But once that quota is filled, the US companies have to stop selling until next year.

Having all the Customs Union countries share the quotas is again important because otherwise the USA could import 5,000 to Ireland, and then 6,000 to France - thus exceeding the limit. So the countries must share the quotas and let each other know how many have come in.

Goods within a Customs Union can move more freely than those outside. But there are limits.

Turkey (partial Customs Union only)


Turkey currently has a Customs Union with the EU. But it only relates to certain goods. For these goods, Turkey pays no tariff and has no quota when exporting to the EU. Turkey also charges the same tariff and enforces the same external quotas as the EU does - so no outside countries get an advantage by importing through Turkey.

However, this means that Turkey have to obey EU laws and regulations for all the goods which are covered by their Customs Union. Otherwise, firms could just move to Turkey, bypass regulations, and then move the cheaper goods into the EU and sell them there.

But since not all goods are covered, lorries will be checked to see that they are carrying what they claim to be carrying. There is still a "hard border" between Turkey and the UK, despite there being a Customs Union.

Norway (Single Market only)


Norway is in a different position: they are in the Single Market but not in the Customs Union. They can set their own tariffs with other countries. But goods can pass (almost) freely over the border to the EU. Because Norway are in the Single Market and follow all the laws and regulations, goods do not have to be checked for compliance (they will be checked by Norway on arrival from other countries and are from then on fine). The Norway border means you stop, tell the customs agent what you are carrying, pay any tariffs necessary (or prove they have been paid) and then carry on about your business.

So note that being in either a Customs Union or the Single Market still means that you have to have a hard border, with stops and checks in order to preserve the integrity of those bodies. Otherwise they become easy to bypass.

EU countries (both)


EU countries are in both, so there are no border checks needed for any traffic going between EU countries. At least, not for goods. They might want to check for illegal immigrants, and countries can still close their borders for security reasons (eg a terrorist is on the loose so all passports will be checked and searches may be made).

EEA


The EEA is a group of countries which subscribe to the Four Freedoms of the Single Market. Not all countries are in the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland are not in the EU but are in the EEA.

Those countries have to follow most EU laws and regulations. Norway has exemptions for fishing and agriculture.

The EEA is open to members of the EU, and members of EFTA (European Free Trade Association). EFTA consists of Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.

EFTA was originally set up to compete with the EU (or the EEC as it was then called). The UK was a founding member. However, it became clear that the EEC was doing a lot better. The UK and Denmark withdrew in 1973, and joined the EU instead. Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Sweden later followed suit.

The remaining countries (Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, and Iceland) are now in the EU Single Market to a greater or lesser degree but are not in the Customs Union.


Implications of withdrawing


Withdrawing from the Customs Union would allow the UK to do its own trade deals in terms of tariff and quotas. It would introduce paperwork required for goods to cross between the EU and the UK and payment of tariffs (unless a free trade agreement is in place - but that would probably introduce a "country of origin" check so that the USA couldn't send goods to the UK for a lower tariff and then move them into the EU.

In UK terms, this would mean goods from Birmingham would be stopped at the Scottish border while customs taxed them and made sure they were from England.


Withdrawing from the Single Market would require paperwork, compliance checks, lorry searches. A much harder border to sustain those.

In UK terms, this would mean the Scottish border agents physically examining the goods in the lorries, taking one for testing, and forcing the lorry to wait until the process completed. This could take weeks. Agricultural produce can spoil. That's tough luck and the risk the farmer took when they accepted an order from outside their free trade area. This was one of the primary drivers behind creating the EU and allowing "frictionless" trade - trade without these checks.

Withdrawing from both means all of the above.

Hope that helps! Any questions, ask.

u/dougie_g · 1 pointr/ukpolitics

>Again, you've missed my point. What I personally want is not the point. Its about what is happening, irrespective of who wants it. The book I recommended you has over 400 excellent pages explaining.

Are you capable of engaging, or do you want to just quote a book that I'm obviously not going to read so that you can say 'well, if you don't want to learn...'

I suggest you go out and buy this book so that you understand the EU properly, and if you don't then I won't actually offer any points in its favour. You see how absurd this method is?

u/marty_marshall · 1 pointr/law

You should look into the International Tax Nutshell book. It's a really good source and easy to maneuver through since you can search by code section or subject. If you click on the Amazon link to "look inside" the book, scroll down to section 2.05 (expatriation) and it should give you a good start. It's short and made much easier to understand than the IRC.

*Edit: I'm actually not sure about the 10-year issue you mentioned, but section 877(d)(2)(B) might be relevant.

u/turkmenitron · 1 pointr/China

The best would probably be the China Law Deskbook by James Zimmerman.

For patent law, go with Patent Litigation in China.

For commercial and business law, go with Chinese Commercial Law.

u/hassani1387 · 1 pointr/politics

Yes problem because Wikipedia is in general not an authoritative source, and there really is no "varying opinion" on what constitutes a breach of the NPT. The matter is spelled out in minute detail in a legal document called the Safeguards Agreement, previously provided. Note that Acton says what "could" be true, but isn't. Even the Australian fella's claims are not based on the law but on his opinion of what "practical terms" supposedly mean.

The simple fact is that there is no diversion of nuclear material in Iran to non-peaceful uses according to the inspectors, thus Iran has not violated the NPT. Now, instead of relying on wikipedia, I suggest reading one of those things that has paper and covers...called a BOOK.


Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by Daniel Joyner
http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Nuclear-Non-Proliferation-Treaty-Daniel/dp/0199227357/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1333117053&sr=8-2

u/vaiix · 1 pointr/unitedkingdom

You should take a look at THIS BOOK which takes the points made in the article in to far more detail, although keeps it easy to understand, and makes it a genuinely good read - a pretty hard task on a topic so complex as Brexit.

u/siwanwarrior · 1 pointr/LawSchool

I personally like the ITax nutshell....


https://www.amazon.com/International-Taxation-Nutshell-West-Publishing/dp/0314275312


Use it in practice quite a bit

u/jeanclaudegoshdarn · 1 pointr/syriancivilwar

>50 good boy points to /sg/. Don't spend it all on tendies at once, kiddo (be flattered, that's fam).

Well color me tickled, never thought I'd run into a fellow r/tendies poster on a board devoted to SCW discussion . . . err I mean fuck your normie nuggie R2REEEEEE doctrine!

>The "REEE get off my sub" stuff in my earlier reply probably wasn't helpful. I'm annoyed by the GanjaGremlins and elboydos who have become so common and voluble on this sub, just like I'd be annoyed if a bunch of "Bush did nothing wrong" neocon circlejerkers showed up. Hopefully you aren't in that category.

I'm definitely not in that category dude, I'm a regime supporter and I hope Assad wins this war but I'm not blind to what the regime has done in terms of atrocities, I just think they're the lesser of the evils we've been presented so far. And I agree with most of what you said about limited cross border incursions to attack IS in Syria, that does have some support in customary state practice lately. I'm 100% positive that occupying land in this context is still illegal given traditional customary IL forbidding such forms of intervention in the civil wars of other nations.

I'd love to dork out on history and law with you further but I'm currently in the middle of exams and our response chain is growing to novella sized lengths. Anyway if you want to know the sources for my arguments the 2009 EU fact finding mission on Georgia is a good place to start (second report) where it used customary IL to show the illegality of the Russian intervention on behalf of South Ossetia and another source is this Bible of international humanitarian law:

https://www.amazon.com/Law-Armed-Conflict-International-Humanitarian/dp/0521870887

Definitely worth checking out if you're into learning about IHL jus ad bellum and jus in bello, because a lot of what we are discussing as you said is not formally settled law. This book does an excellent job of showing the current state of the law on the issues we're discussing, I wrote my law journal paper on the Russian intervention in the SCW last year and cited this book more than any on these issues.

u/quintusjulius · 1 pointr/unitedkingdom

The legal definition of 'Autonomy' is 'The political independence of a nation; the right (and condition) of self-government' (source) under that definition, every EU member state doesn't have 'full autonomy' because it has to answer to the EU and implement EU legislation - no ifs, no buts, just do it.

The reason that happens is because the Maastricht Treaty was ratified in November 1993 bringing together all members of the 'European Community' under common legal principles, common provisions and common policies. (source, pages 14-17).

Since that time, every policy the EU has approved, member states must implement - unless they have a VETO. Many of the issues you mention, for example - broadcasting, copyright, defence, financial services, the financial market, data protection, employment, immigration, trade and industry, film classification, scientific procedures on live animals, national security and counter-terrorism, betting, gaming and lotteries, emergency powers, extradition, intellectual property, import and export control, customer protection, product standards, safety and liability, weights and measures, telecommunications, postal services, research councils, Energy (oil, gas, nuclear), Social Security, judicial salaries, equal opportunities, control of weapons of mass destruction, Ordnance Survey, Deep Sea mining and time are directly influenced by the EU which Westminster has zero influence over because of the Maastricht Treaty.

Here's a couple of examples:

  1. EU lawmakers vote to scrap clock shifts in 2021
  2. What is Article 13?
  3. Joint Research, including Nuclear Energy and Cyber Security.
  4. Europe’s sweeping privacy rule was supposed to change the internet, but so far it’s mostly created frustration for users, companies, and regulators
  5. Employment Rights (UK Version, here) & Rights at Work

    Of course, that list isn't extensive, but you can also check out a longer list here.
u/agg_aphrophilus · 1 pointr/Somalia

There's a very interesting book called "An Introduction to Islamic Law" by Wael B. Hallaq. I definitely recommend it if you're interested in learning more about the implementation of Islamic law through history.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Islamic-Law-Wael-Hallaq/dp/0521678730

In my opinion, there are three major false assumptions among many Muslims in regards to Islamic law and the Islamic state. First of all, that there is a single definition of shariah and a shariah-based state. There isn't and there never was in pre-modern, pre-colonial Muslim world. Shariah was implemented differently both within caliphates and between caliphates. In broad strokes: legal disputes were brought to the qadi (judge) who was appointed by the caliph directly or through intermediaries. He based his legal decisions on either legal precedent (taqlid) formulated by legal scholars /lawmakers (muftis) or the independent reasoning of said muftis (ijtihad). But then, the muftis don't necessarily agree? Just like lawmakers in modern time don't necessarily agree (majority vs. minority opinion in a court for instance). And perhaps they disagree because they use different methodologies thus the different legal schools (madhab) in Islamic jurisprudence.

What's amazing and quite beautiful about the shariah is the intellectual complexity of it all. But in a more practical sense what happens then (as we also see in modern times in questions such as "is interest-based mortgage allowed?"), is that there is a choice. In most cases the qadi would listen to the mufti appointed to a certain district or a court, or even follow the school favoured by the caliphs. And if the disagreement persisted it, they'd take it to the grand mufti (basically, the supreme court) who most likely was a scholar in the legal tradition favoured by the caliph. But what we then realize is that there was quite a bit of legal variation in pre-modern Muslim empires. And that variation could be because the empires were huge and decentralised. One court in one district would differ from a neighbouring court, and it wouldn't have any significant consequences.


So the second assumption is that it is possible to implement this great legal variation in a centralised, modern state that has fixed legislature. How do you that? Hallaq in the aforementioned book discusses this in great length by referencing other scholars. For instance, contract law differs between the traditional legal schools? What interpretations would you choose to put in your law book? And if your constituents adhere to different madhabs?

You could just force one opinion on everybody as they do in some Muslim countries today. But that's brutal, in my opinion and in opposition to the historic complexity of the shariah.

Imam Ghazali, theologian and philosopher, formulated the purposes of shariah (maqasid al-sharia). Rather than asking what does the shariah say about X, Y and Z. Let's ask what's the shariah supposed to do. And in his own words the shariah is supposed to preserve life, intellect, religion, property and offspring.

I believe what many deem "un-islamic" ideologies are capable of doing that and perhaps even more so than the laissez-faire capitalism of many Muslim countries.

So lastly the third false assumption which isn't necessarily wrong, but misguided: there are certain matters that traditional theologians simply don't answer even if one tried to base an entire political system on a notion of "one shariah". Like, a comprehensive economic theory.

You mention social democracy. Most social democracies adhere to some sort of a mixed-economy or variations on a Keynesian model. Basically: capitalism is okay, but the state should maintain control of the market (i.e fiscal responsibility). Is that more or less Islamic than Hayek's economic theory (capitalism is great, and the state should absolutely not regulate the market)? What about Marxist economy (capitalism is bad, the state should own the market)? Or even something totally else not formulated by a dead white guy?

Muslims differ and disagree on this - as they should. So my thing is, as a Muslim, I consider what the purposes of my Islamic ethics are (Ghazali's maqaasid) and then I use the intellect God has granted me to find out the best way and the best system to preserve life, intellect, religion, property and offspring.

In my case and in Western terms that would be being a socialist in terms of acknowledging both class struggle and the role of a strong government in combatting social and economic inequity. However, also social democrat/Keynesian in that I'm not opposed to capitalism and accept that free market drives innovation. And I guess I'm quite the liberal as well (not in the American, "I watch CNN"-sense) in that I believe in freedom from government. Especially in the private sphere. No government should regulate how I carry my life as long as I don't hurt others.

It's fun figuring all this out! And does spend a life time just doing that. Especially in your late teens early twenties. I did! Read alot, is my suggestion!

u/SYEDSAYS · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

I know of two books which deals with this directly.

  1. Mizan by Javed Ghamidi. This deals with each aspect of Sharia and it's philosophy behind it and it's boundaries.

  2. An Introduction to Islamic Law - Wael Hallaq
u/Adnimistrator · 0 pointsr/islam

Best one by an academic researcher:
An Introduction to Islamic Law by Wael Hallaq

Deals with its history, theory and contemporary practice.

Edit: an older submission:
A TLDR description of Islamic law in one paragraph

u/basicchannels · 0 pointsr/ukpolitics

You haven’t proved it ain’t. It just depends on what perspective you look at it from. I’m offering a different perspective which is equally correct. There are 44 countries in Europe according to NATO. Up to 51 with some other counts yet the EU only has 28 members.

The conditions for joining the EU are strict and Elitist. You can argue that this may be a good thing which is totally valid, the EU has every reason to expect a country to meet very very specific conditions. Similarly you may argue it has good reasons for being as protectionist as it is but what you can’t do is deny it is these things, the EU defines itself as such.

I don’t particularly care either way about the EU there are arguments on both sides. However I do appreciate consistency and with that let’s just acknowledge that the whole concept of the EU is at the very least elitist if not racist.

Where I find your argument short sighted is you don’t acknowledge the trajectory or concept of federalisation that the EU is on. Key figures have made no secret, writing manifestos that the only way to save Europe is to become like the USA. Therefore the whole argument turns around if you start thinking of the EU AS a nation itself with states. It pretty much fulfils most criterias that satisfy the definition of being a nation. Indeed you highlighted most of them including a single currency. Which has done a huge amount of damage which Yanis Varoufakis is pretty eloquent on. If you’re not familiar with this aspect of the EU I recommend you look into it a bit. I think you might get into it. Also you should read the Maastricht treaty and Lisbon treaty to better understand the Union. They’re all available online.

u/HeTalksToComputers · 0 pointsr/worldnews

> The most bullshit part is international law. It doesn't exist.

Excuse me?

u/JonstheSquire · 0 pointsr/politics

It is a pretty common way to refer to American legal traditions that were imported from England. Common law and Anglo-American law are used somewhat interchangeably although they arguably have slightly different meanings. In the context Sessions said it, Anglo-American actually makes more sense because it more all encompassing when referring to American legal institutions taken from England than simply saying common law. Common law is a body of law and a system of legal reasoning. Anglo-American legal traditions encompass institutions beyond simply the body of law and the system of legal reasoning. Here is a good tweet thread that lays out a few examples of an Obama era DOJ official using the term as well as a Democratic senator and a Supreme Court justice.

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/963173679994753027

Here are a few legal books that use the terms almost interchangeably in their titles.

https://www.amazon.com/History-Common-Law-Anglo-American-Institutions/dp/0735562903

https://www.amazon.com/Form-Substance-Anglo-American-Law-Institutions/dp/0198257341

https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Introduction-Anglo-American-Law-Nutshell/dp/0314747087

https://library.law.yale.edu/anglo-american-legal-heritage-introductory-materials

Also, Encyclopedia.com treats them as interchangeable.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/common-law-anglo-american

u/shillforyou · 0 pointsr/geopolitics

>Ummm please stop making up total BS and acting like you know what you're talking about when you quite obviously do not.

Reality: All claims have been sourced.

>Allow me to educate you a bit.

>https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0199377898

Reality: Linking books from one international lawyer's opinions does not constitute a specific response to any claim made.

>The NPT and the IAEA are two separate things. The IAEA is not a nuclear weapons police force in charge of finding hidden nuclear weapons programs, it is just another international organization in charge of promoting nuclear power by setting stadnards etc.

Reality: True, and uncontested in any post.

>The NPT requires signatories to maintain safeguards with the IAEA (the one Iran signed in 1974 was the standard as that signed by other countries)

Reality: True, and uncontested.

>had you actually read it and understood it you'd see this -- the role of the IAEA is

>EXCLUSIVELY to measure the amount of nuclear material and compare it to the countries declarations to ensure that there has been no diversion of nuclear material to non-peaceful uses

Reality: True, and uncontested. The original claim made was that military sites must be opened for inspection on suspicion of violation of safeguards even under the NPT, making Iranian refusal of any grounds for inspection appear threatening to Saudi Arabia, rightly or wrongly.

>which the IAEA has certified to be the case in every single IAEA report on Iran, ever.

Reality: Misleading, at best.

Reality: A 2011 IAEA report noted that the IAEA can verify non-diversion of declared material, but due to Iranian non-cooperation, cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran (p. 10). The IAEA therefore said it could not verify that Iran's program was "entirely peaceful". This is contrary to the goal of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement concluded with Iran, which states in Article 1:

>The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied, in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all
peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of Iran, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its
control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Reality: The IAEA could not undertake this function because Iranian noncompliance made it impossible to have "credible assurance" of Iranian use of nuclear material solely for peaceful purposes.

>So I suggest you educate yourself before spouting total nonsense

Reality: All claims are sourced.

>http://lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/index.htm

Reality: Does not contest any point directly. Unclear response.

>Iran supports Hezbollah, a legitimate Lebanese political party that won massive support in parliamentary elections there

Reality: Hezbollah won 2 additional seats. Hezbollah's allies made significant gains, but are not Iranian-backed groups with military presence. Hezbollah retains 13 seats in a 128 seat Parliament.

Reality: Hezbollah's political clout does not change its terrorist status. The group remains a terrorist organization in the eyes of the liberal world. Hezbollah continues to plan and organize attacks targeting civilians for political purposes.

>Iran backed Nelson Mandela when the US had labeled him a terrorist

Reality: Source required.

>and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to tthe racist apartheid regime in S Africa, so what's your point?

Reality: This has been contested heavily, but the only allegations relate to allegations of an Israeli offer of sale in March 1975. This would be prior to the Iranian Revolution, and therefore could not physically be during the time you claim that Iran was backing Nelson Mandela, unless you are referring to the Shah backing Mandela.

>And ps there's no distinction between "private financiers" and the Saudi officials when it comes to state money there.

Reality: False. The Saudi government has, in the past, cracked down on private financiers. It has not done this regularly, but there is a separation that has turned towards crackdowns in recent years, despite prior ambivalence or tacit support.

>"There were parts coming from Iran, there was parts also coming from other countries" said Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche. "I cannot say from what I see on the ground that Iran is behind that." http://www.ctvnews.ca/top-general-says-no-evidence-iran-behind-ieds-1.269717

Reality: Article is from 2008. This is highly misleading. Afghan officials do not allege mere arms transfers. US intelligence does not allege mere arms transfers, but also funding. RAND think-tank reports describe this in further detail historically.

Reality: Article quotes NATO refusal to name Iran as source of IED materials. NATO's head in 2016 explicitly named Iran as a funding source for the Taliban. Your information is outdated.

>"We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it is smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSFLE35878420070604

Reality: Incorporate above response. Also note article date of June 2007. US SecDef Gates said less than two weeks later that intelligence did tie Iran's government to the shipments.

Reality: US SecDef Gates reiterated that Iran was supporting the Taliban in 2010 under President Obama.

Reality: You are misrepresenting the information presented with misleading and outdated sources.

>British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html

Reality: Article is also from October 2006. Please incorporate above responses.

Reality: In 2008, British special forces uncovered evidence of Iran funding the Taliban.

Reality: In 2007, the British Army reported Iran supplies of missiles to the Taliban for use on British troops.

Reality: In 2011, British forces seized shipments of Iranian weapons bound for the Taliban.

Reality: You distorted and misled once more.

>Top US General: No Evidence Iran Arming Iraqis http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17129144/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-general-no-evidence-iran-arming-iraqis/

Reality: Note article date of February 2007. Incorporate above sources.

Reality: Note article relates to arms to Iraqis, not Taliban.

Reality: In April 2007, two months after your article, Gen. Peter Pace stated that Iran was sending weapons to Iraq.

>Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq Arms link http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/23/world/fg-iraniraq23/2

Reality: Note article date is January 2007. Incorporate above points, which thoroughly rebut argument.

>The US even refused Iranian cooperation over Al Qaeda

Reality: True, but uncontested and unrelated to above points.

>Iran even offered to give BinLadin's son to the US but the Bush admin refused

Reality: True, but uncontested, and unrelated. Bin Laden's fourth son, a middling operative, was not a high-value target as well.

Reality: Your own sources have all stated Iran funded, aided, and abetted Taliban and Iraqi militia actions. The 9/11 Commission Report and Bin Laden files confirm that Iran has assisted Al Qaeda. Iran has assisted Hezbollah. Iran has assisted Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. Iran has at times not complied with IAEA Safeguards Agreements credibly, and is required under these agreements to open military sites for inspection upon suspicion per former deputy director-general of the IAEA Olli Heinonen and the Agreements and the IAEA Board of Governors, but refuses to open any military sites for any reason. This has, for good reason or not, led to fear by the Saudis, who have thus withdrawn their support for the JCPOA.