Re: Some issues of international law and genocide

["Stuart Lawrence" <stuartwl@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>


>>                      LIL'WAT V. FRANCE AND OTHERS


Not a very promising precedent for entities contending for the status of
states in the ICJ, I'd have to say. Are you citing this to demonstrate that
international law is a hypocritical facade on the exercise of force, or as
an example of protest against that facade?

Treaty 7 (http://www.treaty7.org/info/treaty7.htm) seems key to one facet of
your argument, but that raises as many questions as it answers. I'm
perplexed how an advocate of Blackfoot sovereignty could cite this treaty
approvingly -- it clearly looks more like an outright surrender of
sovereignty. Only with a full-on attack on the legitimacy of this treaty can
I see you making a case that the Blackfoot -preserved a claim to independent
statehood through continuous exercise of sovereign authority. Does your
reference to the fact that "some Blackfoot deny that Treaty 7 was actually
signed by the principal chiefs of the Blackfoot" express your own position?
What do you think Treaty 7 left the Blackfoot with, besides than "requisites
of nationhood" unaccompanied by state status? Taking Treaty 7 on its face, a
Blackfoot state existed, as you point out, because one had to exist for a
treaty to be validly contracted. But in Treaty 7 the Blackfoot plainly
extinguish that state and pledge to become loyal subjects of the Queen. This
is no logical contradiction, as you argue, but the common practice
accompanying both imperialist conquests and peaceful confederations. Both
types of events have been sanctioned and legitimated via treaties, precisely
in order to extinguish claims of independent sovereignty and extend the
domain of one state into that of another. Whatever the status of the
Blackfoot representative institutions after Treaty 7, they could no longer
claim to constitute a sovereign state while acknowledging that treaty as
valid. Do you read this document differently, or question its legitimacy? If
so, why don't you spell that out in your statement?

Stuart



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.