Now, you concede that rules established by a 50%+1 majority (whether of the citizens of a country or representatives of other nations) are not necessarily legitimate anyway. “Undemocratic” is apparently just a synonym for “any process that creates results I don’t like.”

Two points: we are discussing international affairs. A majority of “representatives” of countries is not even close to diplomatic, because unlike voters, countries do not and should not be granted equal rights. For that matter, they don’t have rights at all. Hence, my original point about international law stands: it is illegitimate at its base, and hence illegitimate in general.

International law lacks:
1) legitimate methods of original formation
2) legitimate methods of adjudication (the ICJ is hardly universally legitimate)
3) methods of enforcement

In other words, it is a fiction.

What is not a fiction is the international contracts and norms that some countries conform to, most of the time, when it suits them. To raise that to the standard of legitimate law (or even to call it law) is laughable, no matter how stylish or common the practice.

Regarding individual voters, which you may have inferred from my response to someone else who raised the issue – the US Constitution rightly recognizes that pure democracy is a terrible idea on important issues, as does every other country in the world that I am aware of. So yeah, a 50%+1 vote, at least on certain issues (say, whether to repeal the 1st amendment) should not be recognized as valid. However, a clean vote is a democratic process, even if it is applied inappropriately.

This is also the reason they tried to change (They might well have done it for all I know) the Geneva Convention to give specific rights to the ratbags who were fighting out of uniform and using the civilian population for cover.

I basically agree with your post but I would be interested in your views on a narrow point of terminology and fact. You use the term “appease” to refer to the US government’s reasons for going along with restrictions on anti-Muslim speech. In my understanding, the word “appease” is commonly used when one party gives another party something the latter wants in hope of making the latter more satisfied with his position and therefore less likely to act aggressively. (Munich is the classic unsuccessful example, of course.)

It seems to me the US has more complex and subtle reasons for engaging demonstrative pro-Muslim behavior at the present time. The US is trying to persuade several Muslim governments to engage in costly and dangerous military activity to promote US objectives (Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan) and other Muslim governments to support diplomatic initiatives (e.g., trying to get Egypt to limit arms flow to Gaza). We are also trying to persuade various Muslim non-governmental groups to support us
in these initiatives (e.g., getting Sunni clans in Iraq to oppose Al Quaida, possibly trying to split the Taliban in Afganistan, etc.). In this context, pandering to Muslim sensitivities on speech issues is arguably more like ordinary diplomatic horse trading than “appeasement” in the Munich sense of the term.

I think I would agree that restrictions on free speech should not be used for diplomatic horsetrading. But if my analysis is correct, what is going on is different from appeasement. The practical significance is that, as a matter of political and bureaucratic strategy, stopping the use of free speech for diplomatic horsetrading may require different methods and different arguments than opposing simple appeasement.

Ricardo: they’re concerned. Very dangerous people, and they must be stopped at our borders.

To be more consistent, I’d say I’m against any process that involves non-republican nations. I mean little-r republican, not the GOP. You know what I mean.

Anon, you do know what a “race” is, don’t you? Or are you just trying to trade off the connotative rather than denotative meaning of the word?

Sigh. You’re not alone in that, of course. The various “ists” have gradually become “comments about a group that are not sanctioned by the Better People.”

Which is why, in most instances, we are content to cherry-pick international standards to provide persuasive support. So one is more likely to see persuasive authority from the ECHR than from North Korea; and one is unlikely (imo; I have some faith in The Nine) to see, say, the hijab, turban or kippah banned from public schools here in the USA.

And why most international authorities are only binding to the extent they have actual authority over their supposed recipients: individuals are subject to human rights/criminal tribunals up to the point countries are willing to extradite to them. Direct authority is very much the exception, with the huge exceptions of the GATT/WTO and NAFTA dispute resolution systems – each of which creates an ‘internal’ zone of authority and generally do not bind, or serve as precedential authority, in national courts.

And why a committee council carries no direct authority over us (rightly so), existing instead (in theory) as a means to encourage good behavior by engaging everybody in a democratic process. Sort of like how democracy was supposed to make Hamas play nice: it might work, but current developments are not promising.

PeteP: You’re aware of our President’s middle name, right ?

That’s straight-up racism.

You’re aware of our President’s middle name, right ?

‘nough said.

The OIC’s main purpose is to ensure all Muslim countries rule according to the Koran and adopt Sharia law. The additional aim is to ensure Islamic principles are adopted wherever Muslims live.

Now why on earth would the OIC be pushing this.

More to the point, why did the US change from not supporting this. Is the US Gullible, naive, or worse.

A human rights resolution sponsored by the most unfree and repressive regimes in the world? When the state-sponsored media in the Arab world stops printing the most vile anti-Semitic propaganda, then maybe we can start listening to anything they say without laughing at its hypocrisy.

Only in Obama’s land of make-believe should we listen to anything they say on the subject…

John Moore: Arrowsmith, it’s even worse than that. That can be 50%+1 of a count of nations in an international forum — regardless of the legitimacy of the government or the significant of the nation.

First you criticize international law because it is the outcome of “undemocratic processes.” Now, you concede that rules established by a 50%+1 majority (whether of the citizens of a country or representatives of other nations) are not necessarily legitimate anyway. “Undemocratic” is apparently just a synonym for “any process that creates results I don’t like.”

Make no mistake about it, this is a victory for the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) which has been campaigning for international criminalization of “Islamophobia” and blasphemy since publication of the Mohammad cartoons in Denmark in 2005.

The Europeans who “voted” massively for Obama in 2008 are having second thoughts (at least when it comes to his posture towards Islam).

Unless they disagree with the 50%+ 1 and then that’s what they have the Courts for.

Leftists frequently cite “democracy” as the #1 morality they abide by. So 50% + 1 is always enough to decide the highest moral issues for them. There are no “natural rights” as far as they’re concerned. Very dangerous people, and they must be stopped at our borders.

Arrowsmith, it’s even worse than that. That can be 50%+1 of a count of nations in an international forum – regardless of the legitimacy of the government or the significant of the nation.

TK75: The hypocrisy of despotic nations voting in a democratic process on resolutions at the UN never ceases to amaze me, and the fact that democratic nations partake in this farce disgusts me.The UN is a rotting cesspool of corruption and filth that serves no purpose except to legitimize tyrants and act as a forum to bash the US and Israel.But I guess it makes sense for Obama…

You make the UN to sound like Mos Eisley space port.

John Moore: This should serve as an example to those who would (and often argue for here) make US laws and Constitution subsidiary to international “law.”International law seems to have little or no legitimacy, since it is created by undemocratic processes and is not underpinned by a natural rights philosophy or constitution.Hence, it becomes either a bludgeon used to defang the most powerful legitimate institution, the US government, or to legitimatize undemocratic or non-rights-based regimes.It’s worship by the American left should cease.

Leftists frequently cite “democracy” as the #1 morality they abide by. So 50% + 1 is always enough to decide the highest moral issues for them. There are no “natural rights” as far as they’re concerned. Very dangerous people, and they must be stopped at our borders.

The UN is a rotting cesspool of corruption and filth that serves no purpose except to legitimize tyrants and act as a forum to bash the US and Israel.

But I guess it makes sense for Obama…

International law seems to have little or no legitimacy, since it is created by undemocratic processes and is not underpinned by a natural rights philosophy or constitution.

Hence, it becomes either a bludgeon used to defang the most powerful legitimate institution, the US government, or to legitimatize undemocratic or non-rights-based regimes.

It’s worship by the American left should cease.