[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

29128: Nat reply:RE: 29125: Clerie (Reply): Re: 29116: Nat comments: RE: 29099: (fwd)

From: Rob 6969 <liberalproject@hotmail.com>

Indeed these are only codifications of customary laws but the convention itself is still a good base and could be applied or interpreted retroactively. Also customs are a source of law in international arbitration. In any case the illegality of France actions is clear if we read through the Vienna Treaty of 1815. France had already signed this treaty in 1824 (Treaty of Vienna, 1815) and so its use of threat to enforce this payment was totally outside the law. I think that if Preval can get his country stronger in a couple of years and the Haitian community organizes itself well in France we could get something out of them if we do it intelligently. Money should be refunded but through concrete infrastructure and educational projects.

From: Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>
To: "Bob Corbett's Haiti list" <haiti@lists.webster.edu>
Subject: 29125: Clerie (Reply): Re: 29116: Nat comments: RE: 29099: Clerie (Reply): Re: 29093: Stephen (reply) RE: 29077: (fwd)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 06:27:42 -0500 (CDT)

Philippe Clerie <philippe@gcal.net>

What about the Vienna Convention? France signed it (only after 1945)

I am an even worse lawyer than a historian. And all I know about diplomacy is
that there is such a word. Which Vienna Convention are we talking about?

After a quick check with Google and Wikipedia, it seems that neither the
Vienna Convention of 1961 nor that of 1969 would have been known to either
the French or the Haitians of 1820/30.



The trouble with common sense is that it is so uncommon.

Get the new Windows Live Messenger! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline