![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jurisprudence Today
Today in Jurisprudence
THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS - The International Court of Justice ruled Friday that Israel's security wall is in violation of international law. This revelation that the building of barrier walls is criminal
implicates several hundred years worth of Chinese administrations complacent in the construction and maintanance of the Great Wall of China. Lawyers are now scrambling on both sides of the Chinese case; in lieu of the precedent set Friday by the ICJ, millions of Chinese citizens could be eligable for reparations for the hardships the wall caused their ancestors over the course of many generations.
A similar case is being brought up by Scotland over the Roman construction of Hadrian's Wall in 122 AD which some allege constituted "de facto annexation" of some Pictish settlements. Lawyers for Emperor Hadrian say they plan to argue that the wall was necessary to prevent terrorist incursians.1
WASHINGTON DC, USA - A US Appeals Court on Friday declared that the government's plans to protect Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository from leaks for the next 10,000 years was "not long enough." The National Academy of Sciences is arguing that plans should extend for 300,000 years. Meanwhile, the radioactive waste sits on barges.2
Seriously Though
1The ICJ did rule that the Israeli wall is criminal and must be torn down, and reparations made to those whom it has caused hardship to (source: AP). The Chinese and Hadrian references are just me being satirical. Now the Israeli / Palestinian thing is one of my favourite things to steer very clear of, but I must say, I'm very disappointed that the ICJ appears to be making a politically motivated ruling not backed by precedent. The wall may be politically condemnable, but that is very different from being judicially condemnable and criminal. To my knowledge there is no international law, treaty, or convention stating that the construction of security walls is in forbidden.
If that is so, let me tell you, there are a lot of "walled communities" in Orange County. Laguna Woods is in fact an entirely walled city here.
2Unlike the previous paragraph, everything written here about the Yucca mountain debate is ALL TRUE (source: NY Times). The court and the environmental lobby has in fact argued that 10,000 years isn't nearly long enough and 300,000 years is more appropriate. OMG WTF - thats a long time! And well, I suppose it would be a teniable argument in some kind of sense if it weren't for the fact that the alternative is that this nuclear waste is on barges and in various temporary storage facilities that I'll bet you are NOT rated for even a fraction of 10,000 years. 10,000 may not be ideal but it sounds better to me that nuclear waste on barges.
Picture of the Day
in keeping with the political theme of this entry
Special thanks to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
apoplecticfittz in whose Ode to Google Image Search (II) I found this picture.Related
Year Ago Today: A Day in the Life of Kris - by this point last summer I'd been to at least three beach bonfires and one awesome party, as many other miscellenious adventures. At this point this summer I have done nothing of the sort.
But yea, so a year ago today, risky endeavors, fear and loathing at the beach, unlikely coincidences, predictable behaviors, being emo, being interrogated by the police, and depositing things for others to pick up later, just a typical day.
quiz
no subject
good move isrealis! You know what they say, whatever doesn't totally wipe your race out makes it stronger! You sure showed hitler! You're taking methods HE used and applying it to a group of people he only dreamed about!
devil's advocate time
Re: devil's advocate time
Finally, I wouldn't have retaliated the first time they did it by bulldozing city blocks while people were still in the building inside, making the problem even WORSE.
Israel pratices the time honored tradition of "your entire family and local church group for my scratched left knee" revenge.
Re: devil's advocate time
Anyway, I'm not saying the wall isn't condemnable, but in order for someone to say something is "illegal" there usually has to have been a clear preexisting rule (in this case a treaty or convention), and there was not. Also judicial bodies generally try to avoid weighing in on things that are being debated politically (example: the US supreme court system's reluctance to weigh in on gay marriage) because that politicizes the judicial body and casts questions on their legitimacy. I think it may be a highly viable opinion that the wall is wrong, but my opinion of the legitimacy of the ICJ has gone down significantly because they decided to weigh in on the subject.
Re: devil's advocate time
Re: devil's advocate time
Re: devil's advocate time
no subject