-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.

Depends on the witness

Sir Christopher Greenwald spcifically named FOUR kinds of people, and I did not see one of those four words on your post, nor on the second post, rather instead of saying, "Dreamer", or "Cynic", and do you now understand whichever you are, HOW you are being played by those who are establishing a global government whether you like it or not? Whichever you are, truely that is your personal private business, but I don't get the big secret, I don't get the insults and accusations from you and insuation that I am a liar because I honestly don't believe you atched the vid, and if you did, how hard would it have been to say.. "dreamer".

I think what he says at 17 minutes is the most brilliant statement about why we should not have a global government I have ever heard.

Thank you for watching 5 minutes

He describes no group

of people who believe the term law is hogwash because a group of people do not have any power, political or otherwise, to confer any status of authority upon their opinions by calling them law.

Can international law change the world?

Dreamers - the right laws can produce utopia.
Disappointed - the right laws can and should but it hasn't materialized.
Realists - states will always act in their own self interest.
Bloglodites - it can not be achieved, but are afraid of the possibility it might be.

So ... if I do not believe in the state or worship statism ... that means by extension if there is an absence of states in any utopia I would advocate, then there can be no international law between states. Your question got an appropriate response.

Furthermore, I mentioned in my comment that later in the video he makes a leap in logic asserting international law can also apply to individuals after premising international law is something between states which was comment not made in the first 5 minutes.

This post

provided me with a proper response and I appreciate you're taking the time to not only listen to the entire vid, which I still find a great find, in having the opportunity to hear from an international judge, what he thinks about International Law changing the world.. I thought it was very insightful when he said maybe he should have entitled the speach, "Can International Law Save The World".

And I like how he comes from a conservative perspective.. and it crushes me when he goes on about, "Environmentalism" because that is Agenda 21. So it appears to me, that international judges respect and want sovreignity, but the environmental push, UN Agenda is a threat, and unless cases be brough forward, there is no turning back, and why he left his title "Change" the world rasther than "save" the world, because he does not see international law, as it is being set with precidents for environmentalism saving the world.. but rather changing it, and not for the better.

Whether you believe there is international law between states is irrelevant, there already is,, has been, will be.. so it's not a matter of if, but how? Ron Paul said free trade, and I would think Sir Christopher Grenwood would agree.

International law does apply to individuals in many ways and why I'm interested in the subject. Again, it's HOW do you want international law to affect you? Treaties between states for trade, or UN Agenda 21 united nannies world police state?




Well, that's short sighted

he talks about Americans and "their" gun control conspiracy theories lies. I thought his perspective was interesting.. he says the UN doesn't want to disarm Americans.. now to me.. I can take this Judges words as proof the UN has no intention to disarm Americans.

Surprised you are so trusting

Surprised you are so trusting of their word. We have proof in the words of so many powerful people on so many important policies that have been implemented far differently. Maybe the 2nd isn't as important an issue to you as it is to most DP members so you give the UN and the rest a pass because the outcome isn't a deal breaker for you. We have heard Obama say no to wars and promise withdrawal and it hasn't happened yet. Do you really believe these liars and misguided people?


No, this is not about trust. This is about hearing for myself.

"We" have translations from others who listen for themselves and then make some issue.. as the example I offered to PAF, I could have made a BIG DEAL, "BUSTED International Judge says American gun grab is a conspiracy!" But there's way more to this vid, and I am not able to make a 2 min clip of just that.. I think the way he discribes international law in important.. I was only able to understand so much.. I need to watch the vid again because there were a few issues he made later in the vid that I want to look into.

I don't give the UN a pass. I don't agree with the UN Agenda and see the affects locally, and I care very much which is why I am involved on the level I am involved in the GOP.. which, the only signs they read are $$$$ signs (and it appears this is the case for the UN ICC).

I did not post this vid to make a statement. I posted the vid as an educational opportuniuty to "meet" a UN judge. Do you know who they are? Maybe you don't care, but I do, and I hope others do too.

Sorry Granger a vote of no confidence across the board

from PHREEDOM. I am not trying to be an antogonist here just being real. I think you MAY have the good intentions but you have demonstrated to me that you are more of the same we have seen from mainline politics over and over that always leads to a bigger problems than we had before.

I honestly do not believe you are knowledgable or competent enough in law or history to have the wisdom necessary to truly protect liberties. Your entire body of work here at DP has demonstrated to me that you believe that "laws" are just something to be determined and made by those "elected". Legislatures have very limited abilities as to what applicable laws they can pass and a real process of representation means that representatives can only do just that RE-PRESENT what has been presented to them by their constituency delegations (currently a lost practice in American politics). Also, real law has to be non-conflicting in its scope and applcation within all other laws. You have not demonstrated to me that you have any clue of this fact within real law and you have demonstrated to me that you you believe that codes passed by legislature are lawfully applicable to the People.

You have also demonstrated very vocal support for Rand Paul who himself has demonstrated deep failures in the understanding of how real law actually works. Also your comments about 215 in California being valid and "working" in California really demonstrated to me your failure. Anyone who thinks any government anywhere has the lawful authority to legislate the legality or lawfulness (either way ilegal or legal) of plant being possessed and utilized by anyone for their own uses as actually valid has failed completely to understand the law itself. No one or body has the lawful authority to make any plant legal or illegal. It is is simply invalid in the scope and application of real law. This should be inherently instinctual to any human being living within the law.

If your failures are this deep in the understanding of law then how can I trust that your conversation within any body politic are worthy of time? I simply can´t.

I vote no confident of The Granger until such time that The Granger can demonstrate a thorough and complete understanding of law itself. I believe that you should humble yourself before your own ignorance and think twice about your involvement in politics for the sake of liberty itself. The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Sorry I needed to say it. No disrespect intended I justdon´t want your ego to deceive you into believing that you can provide leadership or proper protections of law without a very thorough knowledge demonstratewd that is no conflicting. People in political scene will tell ignorant people they are great to ensure their ego decieves them so that they can be a useful idiot to their agenda and I don´t want to see this happen to you or anyone else anymore. This is what has destroyed our republic one ego at a time.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...


I am not amking any attempt to demonstrate anything to you.

Second: I am not an attorney, I am not a para legal, I've had very little experience with any laws besides civil and as an activist beit protesting or rallying I didn't think in terms of the law as much as whating to effect change.. open ballots and debayes for example.

As a Granger, actually got some training, or education, but more training because we practiced Robert's Rules of Order, and I learned about the democratic process of writing resolutionas and Inniatives.. but ultimately, when things got down to IT.. legal council took it.. again, I am NOT legal council, not have I ever told anyone that I was an attorney.. I did take an entertainment law class once.. but that was because I was producing events and as I was making money and having to hire attorneys, I wanted to educate myself so I could communicate better.. And that was my first introduction to internatiuonal law (money in music is international contracts).

Yeah.. I support Rand Paul..

When you decide to run for office (which I highly doubt you will based on your judgement of me, rand and proposition 215, let me know.

What have you accomplished? Nothing. Carry on.

Me thinks you've never done any of that

You've never written a resolutionas or an inniative, and you never shuffled it off onto legal council. You're completely full of it!

Rand winces everytime you post here! Keep it up!!!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

where as

me knows you never wrote a resolution or an inniative or worked on committees or gone to conventions and worked with lobbiests, or legal council to affect change in your community, county or state, but I have.

Sobeit resolved

I'm not here to change what you think or believe Ira. Think and believe what you want.


You were on a really good roll. Please get back on it :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


While I was going through my routine, feeding the critters this morning, your post was in the back of my mind, and I had this thought: I see things from an "Educate yourself and others" perspective. Perhaps I shpould be thinking entertainment rather than education?

I could have posted: BUSTED: SHOCKING International Judge says American conspiracy about UN gun control is bogus!

Everything has it's purpose.. I think for me.. who was here long before many others, and aware of my personal changes.. as I never thought I would ever be a republican.. part of me feels accountable to DP because this is where I started.. this was the place that had the posts that convinced me that if I really wanted Ron Paul for president I needed to get in the GOP and fight.

I never really saw layers of liberty.. grassroots, astroturf, ground floor, suites, circles, boards, committees, PACs, Caucus.. I always thought of the rEVOlution in more organic form.. but now that I am a republican, and a state delegate, who absolutely will be a national delegate if Rand is nominated, and thus working on a state and embarking on the national level, where international law is a subject.. Being new to a major party, I meet people at the conventions who work internationally for global corporations. What's my position?

I'm learning.. Maybe someone on DP has an educated perspective to share? If you look on the dates of the thread.. apparently lawmanjed asked if I could sum it up because not everyone can make the time to watch.. he had an interest in international law.. as I do because I oppose the UN Agenda and I feel the need to understand what it is I am opposing from MY OWN PERSPECTIVE, my own voice, and maybe use other voices like Ron to back me? Maybe someone on DP has a link? You never know who happens to be on DP or who is interested in what.

I responded to lawmanjed, not to bump the thread. I don't bump my threads. Look at my posts if you don't believe me.. I make a post and no one sees it.. poof.. onward. It's like throwing out a $1K bill.. maybe someone will find it, maybe it will be burried by a cow taking a dump. Where ever it goes it goes and I'm not going to control it because I'm not interested in controlling it. I don't care if a cow takes a dump and I don't care that someone just got $1K.. I care that the someone and the cow are happy.

Some people come to dp to downvote. Now those downvotes may appear as a reflection on me because I'm collecting them.. however.. let's look at what I put up.. I put up a post of a UN Judge talking about International Law changing the world.

Why a downvote? just don't like international law.

Should I take that personally?

It has NOTHING to do with the content of what I posted.

Oh Granger. Like a comment said before:

you were on such a "good" roll.

Truth is, you KNOW how the DP feels about international law, the UN, and the UN Agenda's (21).

It IS the content that you post that gets downvoted because some/most of it isn't true.

A perfect example of this is that you continue to deny that Israel used White Phosphorus on Palestinian Civilians.


Granger, I think you know what you're doing here at the DP and, honestly, it disgusts me. You're as bad as the mainstream media, imho. I always take everything you say with a grain of salt because I've caught you lying before. Not a half-truth. Lying.

But Nystrom continues to let you comment and kicks out people like FishyCulture.

There's a good and bad side to every website, I guess.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.



I don't know how I could possibly make that more clear that I do not deny what Israerl did, though I have seen and read very convincing reports, that come from credible sources, that the accounts were falsified.. In the case of Israel.. I don't care about the while truth.. I will give the UN the benifit of the doubt and say: ISRAEL USED WHITE PHOSPHEROUS ON GAZA

You say you think you know what I am doing and it discusts you.

I think you have no clue what I am doing and what you FEAR that I may be doing is based on what you have gathered by your own observation and others comments which you agree.

You've caught me lying.. about what?

O find this whole "Who is the Granger" freakin weird to be honest. Who the fuck cares? I'm not selling you anything. You don't agree with me.. don't agree. Be nice if you had some REASON with points that were educational.. but if all you got are FEELINGS and FEAR..

Your post to me is your admitting that you have problems. Take that with salt.

Nystrom invited Fishyculture back and word has it, she has better things to do and sends everyone her LOVE. If she's putting up a goedome over that permaculture pond with the rocket stove, she definately has better things to do, especially at this time of year.. and I hope she is doing well and it would be great for her to come to DP and say HEY NOW. The door is open for her.


You did it again right here and it's the same reason why I continue to say that one liner:

" though I have seen and read very convincing reports, that come from credible sources, that the accounts were falsified.. In the case of Israel....I don't care about the while (I think you meant whole) truth"

THAT, right there, is why some people can't stand your messages.

You're not spreading any love, as you so proclaim to do. You're spreading arrogance in the name of Israel. EXACTLY like Netenyahu.

Btw: could you tally all of your downvotes altogether? Is it around 3k? Maybe 5k?

Don't the downvotes kinda signify other people's position towards your views as a "negative"?


If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

I don't agree

I see the downvotes as grudges from people who

4. Want to feel the are with the in crowd (those who came here about 2 years ago and resent my 6 yeatr history).
5. Come to DP to downvote because they have a miserable life.

There's many reasons people give downvotes, and the only ones I count are the one who have the brains and balls to actually say something about THEIR downvote.

Can't talk to you without talking to me
We're guilty of the same old things
Thinking a lot about less and less
And forgetting the love we bring

Lol oh Granger. I"m going to do you a favor:

I'm going to tell myself, "What would GOD DO in this situation?"

I think he would do the following:

"God Bless you, Granger." And walk away.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.




my lady?

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


downvoted this thread! Really, Granger? I'm interested in USA sovereignty, but other countries are free to do as they will. I only wish our politicians were interested in USA LAW--THE CONSTITUTION!!

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond


posted it as an educational tool. I incorrectly assumed that many DPers were like me and had never heard an international UN judge explain the plan in international law.

I am interested in US sovreignity too.. and that's why I found this interveiw such a great LEARNING TOOL.. get the news from the horses mouth

"the horses mouth" - and mine's a whole lot shorter.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

so said the rabbit

well, this turtle like to hear what the seated judge TODAY has to say because that helps me understand how to debate those who worship guys like the Judge.

Information is power.


now you are ruffling MY feathers lol.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


International Law has been here for a while.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

For the worse...

International law will only make change in the wrong direction.

It's a simple case of Centralization vs Decentralization

This judge

explains how international law is going global.. he explains the legal part of the UN Agenda. I found it interesting. I need to watch it again.. first time gave me too many ideas at once.


You need to watch this I think.


BS Law has been trying to go global for a long time Granger. The rest has kept you with too many ideas at once.

Thank you Base

for sharing your love of the gosples.