• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Iran is not the USA. The sanctions aren’t recognized. Therefore, any laws America makes does not have to be complied with.Your arguing US law. I’m arguing international. They are not the same. The United States of America does not have authority over the world, despite what you wish. Source. Even the UN says the sanctions are illegal.

    • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      your arguing US law. I’m arguing international. They are not the same.

      No shit… these companies operate in the US, which makes US law applicable to them.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, what you’re saying is, international law should be superceded by domestic law?

        • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s how it normally works, yes… particularly if the country in question is not a signatory to the ‘international law’ in question.

            • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That they can issue court orders to companies that do business in their territory?

              They … they know…

              • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That domestic policy supercedes international law? That’s literally been the entire argument for sanctions against China: that their domestic policy violates international law and that under the rules-based international order someone needs to do something about it.

                • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sorry I am finding it very difficult to follow your argument.

                  Can you explain what “international law” you believe US sanctions to have broken?

                  • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Other way around: the US is projecting international law on domestic issues that, as we’ve already established, should be governed by domestic policy before falling to international law.

                    As we’ve already established, condemnation and punitive actions against a country for unilateral domestic policy decisions doesn’t make sense, even if they are in violation of international law.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the point. International designations through the UN are nebulous and practically unenforceable. Countries choose to abide by international regulations or they don’t.