KirStang

Well, there's the whole fiasco with Medellin and the idea of a 'self-executing treaty' and the president's implied power to enter the USA in to a treaty through 'executive agreement' (which does not require senate ratification, but is subject to court challenge.) Although I doubt Obama can legally enter the US in to the International Arms Treaty without running afoul of the Constitution, he technically can enter in to an executive agreement to implement some form of small arms legislation (although implementation itself would probably be problematic).

I tend not to give much credibility to international law, for even though it purports to act in the ends of justice, it is more of a political tool to emphasize legitimacy, rather than a body of law that arises from the will of the people. In other words, International Law is subject to the Whims of the politically powerful parties (i.e. USA, China, UK, Germany).

Consequently, with Libya--who determines who is a 'good country' and who is a 'bad country?' It seems wholly political there. Not to mention, despite treaties--like in the UN charter--there is the right to let countries settle their own domestic affairs (but nevertheless bombing Libya) and I conclude that: Given it's political nature, International law is not a body of law fit to regulate domestic affairs of countries--that is, I'd rather see international law playing more of a role in commerce between countries, wars between countries and other things of an international nature, rather than sticking their finger in to countries' domestic affairs, as we see in Libya.

....I'll stop bullshitting now.

__________________