-20 votes

Can International Law Change the World?

Excellent lecture by UN International Judge Sir Christopher Greenwood at the London School of Economics.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Governments are instituted among Men, ..."

"...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

From who/what/where do these international courts/legislators derive their just powers?


Ruled by the lawless international so called leaders would give the people even more lawless leadership . This would also leave the people NO representation . Like some one posted below BAD, VERY BAD!!!

I'm not against a world

I'm not against a world government in principle. In practice, I don't see myself supporting one anytime soon, but the exact same logic that leads us to accept a federal government could potentially lead us to accept a global government.

You wont have any choice

whether or not you support the One World Government aka the New World Order aka the UN.
Unless you fight against it, you will have it anyway.
Is that liberty?

That's true

Although that is also true of the federal government, unless I move to Canada or something.

Sure, he makes good points.

My first question is to better understand how the Internationalists are setting up their ruling system.

He was elected to this International position. Who elected him?

He was elected

A glance at this will put ot in perspective and look at those names.. some of the most powerful people in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

See who is Sir Christopher Greenwood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Greenwood

And THANK YOU for asking.

Come on Granger.

International law is the realm of the UN and the Trans Pacific Partnership, and is all BAD, BAD, BAD! Did I say it was all bad?
"We the People" have had our law making powers taken away from us, stolen from us whilst we were being amused to death.
Why would I want Monsanto, Pfizer,and God knows what other Global cartel, part of my (or your) countries law making process?
A small country like mine could be Bankrupted and striped of all assets under the terms of the TPP, which is why this Business deal is so secretive.
International law is the politics of Progressives for the benefit of a few. Can it change the world? Yes, but not for the betterment of it.
We should abolish the UN if we want this world to be a better place.

Did someone tell you that

Or do youy know an international judge and had a conversation? Could you introduce me?

Someone didn't tell me,

so I had to go looking for myself, and guess what I found?
I thought that you were against the UN and all it's Progressive evilness. I thought that you wanted the USA to be it's own country, and not be enslaved to the UN? I thought that part of your admiration of the country that shall not be named is because they don't bow down to UN pressure.
International law is spear headed by the UN, which they then preside over.
Who the Hell wants that?? I don't!

You thought correct

And I figured that to make a stand, I have to know what and who, I mean, that I need to know, especially when at a GOP convention sitting at a table of MIC salespeople and want to make a respectable stand for Liberty rather than spew what they consider conspiracy and have no argument, no names.. just opinion based on someone elses.

If you watch the vid, this judge BELIEVES he is HELPING the world.. and what gets me is that he appears to have a HUGE personal distaste for the direction international law is going, which is something I can bring up at a convention banquet.

You may have to spend some time

researching this one Granger. The UN has pages of international law on their web site, but the language used is often ambiguous and open to interpretation...they also use heaps of anagrams that take forever to work out.
Most of the reading I have done on this is pretty heavy, and is horrid to trawl through.
Here is something to get you started
Good luck.


Henry Lamb RIP is who put me onto this before Ron Paul made a bid for president in 07. Like you, I have read quite a bit, and perhaps read news a little different.. the word "sustainable" really used to get to me ..

It is my interest in the topic, how I found the interveiw.. which the UN, nor the ICC provide interneiws of their selected as this insider vid.

That's an interesting web page.. Thank you.. I want to research it for a few things on my mind...

I think that for the most part when it comes to the UN Agenda (and Snowden) I find myself agreeing with you, on everything but one thing.. I think that you believe the UN Agenda is an Israeli product, where to me, it's the last thing Israel wants, and why I took a passion for Israerlm because I see them beating the UN Agenda.. and I wish we would be beating the UN Agenda rather than buying it.

If you read the UN Agenda for Israel you can see clearly that Israel has NO intention of ciiperating with the UN Agenda http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/israel/eco.htm

No, I don't think the UN is Israeli,

but Political Zionism, as it started as the League of Nations.
I think I said to you in a previous post that Political Zionists were very good at playing both sides of the game.
History shows too, that Political Zionists are ruthless when it comes to using Jewish issues to further their own ends.
Was Henry Lamb the founder of Freedom Advocates? The site against UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI?


O'm listening to this vid again.. I stopped it at 38 mins.. he has made the case for sovreign nations. explained the pros and cons and intrnational law, defined how international courts see the individual.. and suddenly.. @38. he says the word "Environment", and now he is telling us how that majoc word is what is being played to change society.. and it appears.. in how he discribes the court system.. they have been very busy working, because "change" is going to come swiftly. I think it's very educational vid about international courts and law, an insiders look so one can say more than "onternational law Bad." Ugh downvotes. me no like interntational law.. I hope you can find the hour 15 mins to watch because like me, you have an issue with UN Agenda.. we are getting validation.

Yes, that Henry Lamb. Isn't he wonderful?

Or maybe I need to admit I have a think for short, thin, old men?

I didn't begin on DP as a political zionist.. but I find myself becoming one, and I guess as I have morphed over these years on DP, part of me is still here because I'm trying to see what I saw when I first came here, which was very different.. I definately would not be joining the GOP today.. well, I didn't when I got here, took me an election cycle, and yet I have no regrets. It's like passing through a door and you can never get back the other way.. or can you? I don't know. Maybe why I'm here is trying to SEE it.

The Zionist had a war of independence from the league and they are brilliant dealing with the corrupt UN. I wish we would not sign treaties.

Jewish issues.. the holocast?

I think the entire British Mandate should be Israel. I think Palestine WAS whatever it WAS and the poor Paletinian people suffer from corrupt leadership.. and they would be better off telling the UN, radical Islam and the PA to get lost and become Israel, because Israel is awesome and Palestine needs some awesome, rather than this commustist alliance between Press TV and RT that enslaves them and keeps them under layers of constant Authority.

I think people who take the time to learn about Israel wind up loving Israel unless thay have a religious or political agenda that is opposed to sovreign states that are way smarter than the UN.

Off shore Lawmakers,

off shore Bankers, yeah Granger, if ya think that input has been good for your Country I can see where your at.


Good for the country?

I think it's being shoved on this country and thought maybe you would like to meet one of those doing the shoving?

The UN ,,,

is a fascist corporation that's it!


with a lot of Communist nations

And so many know they don't like the UN, but god help them make an intelligent argument about specifics.


I’m sorry Granger but I really don’t find corruption interesting at any level,,,sorry


no problem

when you find something that isn't corrupt, let me know.





No it can not

until people can at least have an honest conversation about what law is.

Law is the opinion of a group of people who think their opinions are so special they can be enforced upon everyone else by the barrel of a gun.

Hey, here is our decree ... and because we followed some magical procedure we just changed two minutes ago, our opinion automatically becomes something other than an opinion ... it becomes clothed in a new magical word we thought up ... law ... tada! This way people won't pay attention to the fact law is just our opinion clothed in magical words.

What right do we have to trespass against you? Because our opinions are magical and the ... dum dum dum ... laaaaaaw ... duh! OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOo!

He explaines there is nothing magical about it

Source and resource. Though I can see where the connection between soccery and source can be made.


He describes the body of law international law he refers to as that which applies between states.

Later in the video he makes some kind of logical leap with no explanation in that international law can also apply to individuals.

If that blaring contradiction was not enough at no point in the video is the term law defined. That is the kind of shit your typical statist does. They just throw out a term and presume everyone knows what they mean since magical words are certified to be self defining because ... they are magical.

In contrast, libertarians provide a definition when they talk about the state even if statists are unable to define the term. An entity with a monopoly of force over a given geographical area or something like that.

How about his four classes of people?

Which class are you?

Obviously I am not in

a class of dishonest people who peddle the opinions of small groups of people ought to be enforced upon everyone else using the barrel of a gun by calling it law as if that word somehow magically legitimizes fraud and coercion.


you didn't watch the video.


do you expect one to respond to that after referring to specific points made in the video at specific times? Bear false witness much?