• Badass_panda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

      • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That they can issue court orders to companies that do business in their territory?

        They … they know…

        • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year 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
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year 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.