As an international lawyer, you don't make it to first base. Who is
"the international community"? What do they do to "recognise" a
government?
It's amusing you want to critic my 'lawyer' status and then follow by
asking those fundamental questions.
In this context the 'international community" is the collection of
recognized sovereigns capable of recognizing another government.
Your "simple statement" is simple because it is meaningless. Try and
find something that relates to objectively defined and verifiable
facts.
What's meaningless is you trying to argue about a simple, self evident.
statement.
As you fail to recognise when you "say" something.
Again, you want to argue against the self evident. If you think the Taliban
was a "recognized government' then find a government who 'recognized' it.
It is an interesting article on what a court has to look at when they
want to decide whether a government is "recognised" or not.
No, it's an article of his opinion on what he thinks they 'should', or can,
look at. He has no authority to dictate to the court nor the government. He
can simply 'argue his case'.
You also confuse domestic commercial matters with the international
political. As the article you, yourself, presented "the advance this
judgment makes is to prise away the question of who is the government for
international, political purposes from the question of who it is for
domestic legal purposes."
It's one of those 'pragmatic' aspects of the law you apparently disdain,
"they got the money so we still want to sue whether they're a legitimate
government or not' (among other matters that may please the court).
And the references further clarify the derivative.
"11.... to the effect that courts may enforce the acts of an UNRECOGNIZED
entity where private rights, or acts of everyday occurrence or perfunctory
acts of administration are concerned'
..
..
the courts of this country can recognize the laws or acts of a body which
is in effective control of a territory even though it has NOT BEEN
RECOGNIZED by Her Majesty's Government"
I.E. no reason to dispute the legal marital status of someone simply
because they're unfortunate enough to have been married some place
controlled by terrorists or other unrecognized entity.
It is identified as the one that carries most weight in U.S. courts.
The U.K. courts are less independent.
Be interesting to see you cite something but, in any case, US courts cannot
dictate who the US government will recognize as the sovereign of any nation.
Whose "fact" is this? Your opinion isn't exactly decisive in any
tribunal I've ever heard of.
I'll be more precise, I can't find reference to any sovereign 'recognizing'
the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and they definitely
did not occupy the UN seat for Afghanistan, a condition normally accepted
as being 'recognized'.
And if you're going to keep insisting they were 'recognized' then you need
to find some sovereign who did. Otherwise it's just you blustering and
complaining about it.
And I've had my good laugh - when the Northern Alliance hung onto to
its UN seat when it only controlled 10% of Afghanistan, that definition
of a "recognised government" became the stuff of comedy.
You can laugh all you want but one does not get to 'hold onto' a UN seat
because they like the chair. The body must recognize them as the legitimate
representative of the government in order to do so. Just ask Taiwan who was
instructed to get their butt out.
Nonsense.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092801a.htm
"The United Nations and the governments of other nations still recognize
and maintain diplomatic relations with the Northern Alliance, rather than
the Taliban."
by giving the Taliban money to help root out the
opium-growers - a job they were managing much better than anybody else
ever did, and much better than anybody else has since they were booted
out.
Man, you don't even read your own articles.
"This is, again, because States often, for policy rather than legal
reasons, have relations with bodies that are not governments or States."
I'm certainly giggling. A government isn't unrecognised just because
you'd like it to be the case either.
I didn't say it was, or wasn't, 'just because' and I provided proof the
Taliban was not recognized by the U.N.
So, giggle boy, instead of stomping around like a 3 year old crying "is so,
is so, is so" provide some evidence of which sovereign nations recognized
them. And while you're at it you might also explain why this supposedly
'recognized' government wasn't allowed to sit in the Afghanistan UN seat.
Only if you believe their answer.
LOL. I don't believe it, you actually said it: 'governments don't know if
they 'recognize' one another'.
Try looking at what they did, rather
than listening to what their mendacious diplomats chose to say.
You're simply demonstrating you don't know what a recognized government is.
And try to find a little evidence to support your parochial opinions -
right winger's don't seem to be able to google, and precious few ever
come up with a URL. Even fewer come up with URL's that might be seen as
unbiased.
A pretty stupid thing for you to say when I've presented the supporting
evidence, and URLs.