- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 28,200
- Points
- 113
Trump: I can take over Greenland the easy way (voluntary deal), or the hard way (military invasion). Either way, I'm taking over Greenland, whether they like it or not!
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
[Video] - Trump: "I am going to take over Greenland, whether they like it or not!"
- Thread starter UltimaOnline
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 28,200
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2023
- Messages
- 5,167
- Points
- 113
Trump is doing the right thing by fucking China and Russia and India, 3 big shit stirrers
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 24,567
- Points
- 113
Can we take a number. When will he come and take over Singapore? We are being over run by his enemies, the fucking PRC. We need his help.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2023
- Messages
- 5,167
- Points
- 113
He needs to kidnap PAP starting with Prime Minister then can have another election to clean up shithole island
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2024
- Messages
- 7,014
- Points
- 113
If outer space is real, US will definitely be there but the globetards are so dumb to realize that. They will keep on defending their religion just like other religion zealots
You can see for yourself even Russia, China and Japan are not even racing for space tech because it is all a hoax.
But you know dummies are always dummies
You can see for yourself even Russia, China and Japan are not even racing for space tech because it is all a hoax.
But you know dummies are always dummies
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 90,378
- Points
- 113
Sinkie is just not worth it. If trump wants, it will be vietnam.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 15,810
- Points
- 113
What did Greenland do to Trump that he want to war it
Due to abundant natural resources, particularly rare earth elements valued at several trillion USD.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 15,810
- Points
- 113
That is called stealing, not trading. He has no respect for Greenland. Being respectful is a human virtue.
Trump declared, "I don’t need international law," adding, "It depends on your definition of international law," positioning himself as the ultimate authority on such boundaries. When questioned about what would prevent him from using military force to pursue global dominance, Trump responded, "My own morality. My own mind. That’s the only thing that can stop me."
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 40,623
- Points
- 113
Yes, I have read that interview with him. Very appalled to see him speak this way.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 66,524
- Points
- 113
Who exactly is in charge of international law? Somalia? Venezuela? a bunch of third world countries? A bunch of Western Nations? A group of Commie countries?
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 66,524
- Points
- 113
**International law** (also called public international law or the law of nations) differs fundamentally from domestic law because there is **no world government** with a central legislature, executive police force, or compulsory court system. It's a **decentralized** system based primarily on **consent** of sovereign states.
Here's a clear breakdown of who defines, drafts, agrees upon, and enforces international law:
### 1. Who Defines / Creates the Rules? (Sources of International Law)
The authoritative list of sources comes from **Article 38** of the **Statute of the International Court of Justice** (ICJ), which is widely accepted as the standard reference.
The main sources are:
- **International treaties / conventions** (most important in modern practice)
→ These are formal written agreements between states (or sometimes international organizations).
- **Customary international law**
→ Develops when states consistently behave in a certain way (**state practice**) and believe they are legally obligated to do so (**opinio juris**).
→ Once formed, it's binding on nearly all states (except persistent objectors during formation).
- **General principles of law** recognized by civilized nations
→ Basic legal ideas common to major domestic legal systems (e.g., good faith, estoppel, no one can be judge in their own case).
- **Subsidiary means** (to help interpret the above):
→ Judicial decisions (especially ICJ cases)
→ Writings of the most highly qualified scholars/publicists
In practice, **treaties** and **custom** are the two dominant ways new rules emerge.
### 2. Who Drafts and Agrees Upon Them?
- **Treaties**
→ Drafted through **negotiations** among states (often involving diplomats, legal experts, and sometimes international organizations like the UN).
→ Many multilateral treaties are negotiated in large conferences under UN auspices (e.g., UN Climate Change conferences, Law of the Sea Conference).
→ The **International Law Commission** (ILC — a UN body of legal experts) often drafts texts that later become treaties.
→ A treaty becomes binding only after states **expressly consent** — usually by signature + ratification (or accession). Only parties to the treaty are bound (pacta sunt servanda — "agreements must be kept" — is itself a fundamental customary rule).
- **Customary law**
→ Not "drafted" by anyone — it emerges **organically** over time from what states actually do and accept as obligatory.
→ No single vote or signature — it's proven through diplomatic correspondence, military manuals, national legislation, UN resolutions, etc.
In short: **States themselves** (through their governments) draft and agree to almost everything. No higher authority forces them.
### 3. Who Enforces International Law?
Enforcement is the weakest part — there is **no global police** or army that automatically enforces rules.
Enforcement relies on a mix of mechanisms:
- **Voluntary compliance** — most of the time states follow rules because it's in their interest (reputation, reciprocity, avoiding isolation, economic benefits, etc.).
- **Countermeasures & self-help** — injured states can impose sanctions, freeze assets, or (in extreme cases) use force in self-defense (UN Charter Art. 51).
- **United Nations Security Council** (UNSC)
→ The closest thing to a "central enforcer".
→ Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it can impose mandatory sanctions, authorize military action, or refer situations to the **International Criminal Court** (ICC).
→ However, any of the 5 permanent members (USA, Russia, China, France, UK) can **veto** decisions — making enforcement very political and selective.
- **International courts**
→ **ICJ** — settles disputes **between states** (jurisdiction requires consent; judgments are binding but enforcement often relies on UNSC or good faith).
→ **ICC** — prosecutes **individuals** for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression (jurisdiction via state consent or UNSC referral; relies on states to arrest suspects and enforce sentences — no own police).
- **Other pressures** — economic sanctions by coalitions of states, trade restrictions, diplomatic isolation, reputational damage, domestic political pressure, etc.
**Bottom line**: International law is **made and agreed to by states themselves** (mostly through treaties they voluntarily join), and **enforced mainly through political/diplomatic pressure, reciprocity, and — when it works — collective action via the UN Security Council**. Its effectiveness depends heavily on the willingness of powerful states to uphold it.
This is why people often say international law is "weak" compared to domestic law — but it still structures most of global relations surprisingly effectively on a day-to-day basis (trade, diplomacy, aviation, postal services, etc.). When major powers disagree or violate rules, enforcement becomes very difficult — which is exactly why the term gets "thrown around" so much in heated geopolitical debates.
Here's a clear breakdown of who defines, drafts, agrees upon, and enforces international law:
### 1. Who Defines / Creates the Rules? (Sources of International Law)
The authoritative list of sources comes from **Article 38** of the **Statute of the International Court of Justice** (ICJ), which is widely accepted as the standard reference.
The main sources are:
- **International treaties / conventions** (most important in modern practice)
→ These are formal written agreements between states (or sometimes international organizations).
- **Customary international law**
→ Develops when states consistently behave in a certain way (**state practice**) and believe they are legally obligated to do so (**opinio juris**).
→ Once formed, it's binding on nearly all states (except persistent objectors during formation).
- **General principles of law** recognized by civilized nations
→ Basic legal ideas common to major domestic legal systems (e.g., good faith, estoppel, no one can be judge in their own case).
- **Subsidiary means** (to help interpret the above):
→ Judicial decisions (especially ICJ cases)
→ Writings of the most highly qualified scholars/publicists
In practice, **treaties** and **custom** are the two dominant ways new rules emerge.
### 2. Who Drafts and Agrees Upon Them?
- **Treaties**
→ Drafted through **negotiations** among states (often involving diplomats, legal experts, and sometimes international organizations like the UN).
→ Many multilateral treaties are negotiated in large conferences under UN auspices (e.g., UN Climate Change conferences, Law of the Sea Conference).
→ The **International Law Commission** (ILC — a UN body of legal experts) often drafts texts that later become treaties.
→ A treaty becomes binding only after states **expressly consent** — usually by signature + ratification (or accession). Only parties to the treaty are bound (pacta sunt servanda — "agreements must be kept" — is itself a fundamental customary rule).
- **Customary law**
→ Not "drafted" by anyone — it emerges **organically** over time from what states actually do and accept as obligatory.
→ No single vote or signature — it's proven through diplomatic correspondence, military manuals, national legislation, UN resolutions, etc.
In short: **States themselves** (through their governments) draft and agree to almost everything. No higher authority forces them.
### 3. Who Enforces International Law?
Enforcement is the weakest part — there is **no global police** or army that automatically enforces rules.
Enforcement relies on a mix of mechanisms:
- **Voluntary compliance** — most of the time states follow rules because it's in their interest (reputation, reciprocity, avoiding isolation, economic benefits, etc.).
- **Countermeasures & self-help** — injured states can impose sanctions, freeze assets, or (in extreme cases) use force in self-defense (UN Charter Art. 51).
- **United Nations Security Council** (UNSC)
→ The closest thing to a "central enforcer".
→ Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it can impose mandatory sanctions, authorize military action, or refer situations to the **International Criminal Court** (ICC).
→ However, any of the 5 permanent members (USA, Russia, China, France, UK) can **veto** decisions — making enforcement very political and selective.
- **International courts**
→ **ICJ** — settles disputes **between states** (jurisdiction requires consent; judgments are binding but enforcement often relies on UNSC or good faith).
→ **ICC** — prosecutes **individuals** for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression (jurisdiction via state consent or UNSC referral; relies on states to arrest suspects and enforce sentences — no own police).
- **Other pressures** — economic sanctions by coalitions of states, trade restrictions, diplomatic isolation, reputational damage, domestic political pressure, etc.
**Bottom line**: International law is **made and agreed to by states themselves** (mostly through treaties they voluntarily join), and **enforced mainly through political/diplomatic pressure, reciprocity, and — when it works — collective action via the UN Security Council**. Its effectiveness depends heavily on the willingness of powerful states to uphold it.
This is why people often say international law is "weak" compared to domestic law — but it still structures most of global relations surprisingly effectively on a day-to-day basis (trade, diplomacy, aviation, postal services, etc.). When major powers disagree or violate rules, enforcement becomes very difficult — which is exactly why the term gets "thrown around" so much in heated geopolitical debates.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 66,524
- Points
- 113
Singapore, as a small, sovereignty-conscious city-state, is **generally very active** in international law and has ratified hundreds of treaties — particularly in trade, commerce, aviation, maritime law, investment, and many UN conventions. It is a founding member of ASEAN, a strong supporter of the WTO, and hosts key agreements like the **Singapore Convention on Mediation** (2018). However, it has **chosen not to join** several **major multilateral treaties**, often citing concerns over national security, sovereignty, domestic legal compatibility, limited resources (e.g., land constraints), or the belief that existing domestic laws suffice.
Here are some of the **most notable major international treaties** where Singapore is **not a party** (as of early 2026, based on current status):
### 1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) — Establishing the ICC
Singapore participated actively in negotiations (even proposing the "Singapore compromise" on Security Council deferrals), but it has **neither signed nor ratified** the treaty.
This places it among a significant group of non-parties in Asia (including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and others). Reasons often cited include concerns over state sovereignty, potential interference in national judicial systems, and the Court's jurisdiction over serious crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
### 2. 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees + 1967 Protocol
Singapore is **not a party** to these foundational refugee instruments (nor to related statelessness conventions like the 1954 and 1961 treaties).
It has hosted limited numbers of refugees historically (e.g., Vietnamese boat people in the past) but maintains strict immigration controls and provides ad hoc humanitarian assistance without formal asylum obligations. The government has repeatedly explained this stance due to Singapore's small size, high population density, and lack of capacity to absorb large inflows.
### 3. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT, 1984)
Singapore has **not ratified** this core human rights treaty. It is a party to some other major human rights instruments (e.g., it ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 2017), but CAT remains unratified, often linked to domestic policies on corporal punishment and detention.
### 4. Ottawa Treaty (Mine Ban Treaty, 1997) — Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Landmines
Singapore has **not signed** this treaty. It is one of the few remaining producers of anti-personnel mines (for defensive purposes only), alongside major non-parties like the US, China, Russia, and India. Security considerations in a geopolitically tense region are the primary reason cited.
### Other Notable Areas of Non-Participation or Limited Engagement
- **Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977)** — Singapore has ratified the four 1949 Geneva Conventions but **not** the 1977 Additional Protocols (which expand protections in non-international armed conflicts and for certain weapons).
- **Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017, TPNW)** — Not signed or ratified; Singapore has observed meetings but maintains a cautious stance on nuclear disarmament frameworks.
- Various other human rights treaties — Singapore has ratified only a **limited number** of core UN human rights treaties overall (e.g., not the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in full, nor the Convention on Enforced Disappearances).
Singapore's selective approach reflects a pragmatic foreign policy: it engages deeply where treaties align with its interests (e.g., economic openness, rule of law in commerce) but avoids commitments that could constrain its security policies, domestic governance, or resource management. This is common among many Asian states. For the most up-to-date status on any specific treaty, the UN Treaty Collection database is the authoritative source.
Here are some of the **most notable major international treaties** where Singapore is **not a party** (as of early 2026, based on current status):
### 1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) — Establishing the ICC
Singapore participated actively in negotiations (even proposing the "Singapore compromise" on Security Council deferrals), but it has **neither signed nor ratified** the treaty.
This places it among a significant group of non-parties in Asia (including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and others). Reasons often cited include concerns over state sovereignty, potential interference in national judicial systems, and the Court's jurisdiction over serious crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
### 2. 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees + 1967 Protocol
Singapore is **not a party** to these foundational refugee instruments (nor to related statelessness conventions like the 1954 and 1961 treaties).
It has hosted limited numbers of refugees historically (e.g., Vietnamese boat people in the past) but maintains strict immigration controls and provides ad hoc humanitarian assistance without formal asylum obligations. The government has repeatedly explained this stance due to Singapore's small size, high population density, and lack of capacity to absorb large inflows.
### 3. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT, 1984)
Singapore has **not ratified** this core human rights treaty. It is a party to some other major human rights instruments (e.g., it ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 2017), but CAT remains unratified, often linked to domestic policies on corporal punishment and detention.
### 4. Ottawa Treaty (Mine Ban Treaty, 1997) — Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Landmines
Singapore has **not signed** this treaty. It is one of the few remaining producers of anti-personnel mines (for defensive purposes only), alongside major non-parties like the US, China, Russia, and India. Security considerations in a geopolitically tense region are the primary reason cited.
### Other Notable Areas of Non-Participation or Limited Engagement
- **Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977)** — Singapore has ratified the four 1949 Geneva Conventions but **not** the 1977 Additional Protocols (which expand protections in non-international armed conflicts and for certain weapons).
- **Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017, TPNW)** — Not signed or ratified; Singapore has observed meetings but maintains a cautious stance on nuclear disarmament frameworks.
- Various other human rights treaties — Singapore has ratified only a **limited number** of core UN human rights treaties overall (e.g., not the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in full, nor the Convention on Enforced Disappearances).
Singapore's selective approach reflects a pragmatic foreign policy: it engages deeply where treaties align with its interests (e.g., economic openness, rule of law in commerce) but avoids commitments that could constrain its security policies, domestic governance, or resource management. This is common among many Asian states. For the most up-to-date status on any specific treaty, the UN Treaty Collection database is the authoritative source.
Similar threads
