Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Enforcement mechanisms for a global commons are very poor

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 03:22, 20 December 2007; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • The Folly of Res Communis - "A legal concept that a thing ('res') is owned in common by the community ('communis') is not well known to the average person, but it underpins the law of international waters and the law of space. And it really needs to go.
I. Enforcement: The concept of res communis when applied internationally (as opposed to internally, as when a state holds property within its jurisdiction and calls them community property) is incredibly difficult to enforce. If a group of citizens claiming no nationality or a new nationality tried to set up a new country in an area declared by treaty or convention as commonly held by the people of Earth (like the moon or international waters) then who's going to stop them? The UN doesn't really have the mandate for it, but neither does it have the credibility or police for it. Individual countries like the US might step up and do it, but that's prone to biased enforcement. More likely international courts would be brought in to deal with the issue, but how can international courts apply to people that don't recognize the court and aren't nationals of a signatory country? Naturally some courts (see: ICC) try to claim universal jurisdiction, but that's a problematic concept with very limited support.
Ultimately, if in the future somebody tried to set up a country in an area considered res communis then there wouldn't be a lot that countries would want to do to stop them."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.