And it’s being tested again. Because it’s not constitutional or legislative but

And it’s being tested again. Because it’s not constitutional or legislative but judicial hypothesis. That’s why it’s “unsettled law”. Now I do this kind of nonsense for a living and I’m sorry if it violates your sensibilities, but the hierarchy of natural law > common law > constitutional law > legislation > regulation > findings of the court > unsettled findings of the court
– is one of decreasing merit in decidability.

Human rights are an ambition put forward by the anglosphere in living memory. Those rights must be created, and once created they must be insured. But it is not an international law, because all international law is but a contract. And there is no higher law outside that contract but violence (war).

So, you can imagine that the anglosphere postwar created some biblical level of law enforced by god. But it was a practical utility created by anglos, and enforced by the brutal hand of the US armed forces.

Reply addressees: @leftlaneblaine @cenkuygur