• @Badass_panda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    910 months ago

    your arguing US law. I’m arguing international. They are not the same.

    No shit… these companies operate in the US, which makes US law applicable to them.

      • @Badass_panda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        310 months ago

        That’s how it normally works, yes… particularly if the country in question is not a signatory to the ‘international law’ in question.

            • @zephyreks@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              110 months ago

              That domestic policy supercedes international law? That’s literally been the entire argument for sanctions against China: that their domestic policy violates international law and that under the rules-based international order someone needs to do something about it.

              • @Badass_panda@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                110 months ago

                Sorry I am finding it very difficult to follow your argument.

                Can you explain what “international law” you believe US sanctions to have broken?

                • @zephyreks@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  110 months ago

                  Other way around: the US is projecting international law on domestic issues that, as we’ve already established, should be governed by domestic policy before falling to international law.

                  As we’ve already established, condemnation and punitive actions against a country for unilateral domestic policy decisions doesn’t make sense, even if they are in violation of international law.