Who has said it isn't law? It isn't posited by authority, the primary source is agreement between states, and it is states (not you, me or the institutions of NI) that are subject to it.
Replies
Which interpretive norm are you claiming I've not understood, or is important here so as to impact the meaning of 5(b) (by far the most important provision)?
sep 1, 2025, 3:14 pm • 0 0 • view
You did, the last time you were backed into a corner on these questions on this app.
sep 1, 2025, 3:15 pm • 0 0 • view
Fwiiw, I wrote about the usual argument people make about why international law isn't law here spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/s... I suspect you must be misremembering.
sep 1, 2025, 3:44 pm • 1 0 • view
But on this specific issue, on the application of the standard rules of treaty interpretation, you ran back to the old "not law" chestnut. I'll give you that you seem to believe that your personal account of what international law is might well be law. But that doesn't advance your analysis.
sep 2, 2025, 7:38 am • 0 0 • view
What your quoting says the exact opposite of what you claimed I'd said You'll notice that I am saying that international law *is* law and that it is unfortunate if it is undermined qua law, and we should deprecate that. Happy that misunderstanding has been cleared up.
sep 2, 2025, 7:43 am • 0 0 • view
No, what you are saying is that your own quixotic and (for your GFA argument) convenient account of international law is, is law. You seem to draw lines when confronted with the reality of international law.
sep 2, 2025, 7:45 am • 0 0 • view
No. You were making I recall a normative claim about how we should interpret international law. My response was about how that view undermines international law as law, and should be deprecated. ie my view was and is predicated on it being law.
sep 2, 2025, 7:47 am • 0 0 • view
I was making a claim ... or the VCLT (which overlaps with customary international law on the point) clearly states?
sep 2, 2025, 7:50 am • 0 0 • view
I have no problem with the VCLT (that is law too). What I have a problem with is your view of what "purpose" in art 31 entails. That view undermines international law as law: a Bad Thing. A Bad Thing because international law *is* law, not because it isn't. You've not followed the argument.
sep 2, 2025, 7:57 am • 0 0 • view
I've followed the number of leaps your argument takes, and they are far too many to be credible.
sep 2, 2025, 8:25 am • 0 0 • view
Did I? Perhaps you could provide me with a reference. I can point you at several blog posts saying the exact opposite of you like.
sep 1, 2025, 3:16 pm • 1 0 • view