Well, the second paragraph says if they're successful (talk about huge if) "they may then start to fight the word lesbian internationally". I kind of want to say, "At least they're wise enough to take things a step at a time," except taking the first step wasn't so wise.
When people say things are a matter of "international law", they usually mean not that there is some universal set of laws that all nations obey -- because such a thing doesn't exist -- but more that there are complicated issues with applying one nation's laws within another nation's borders, or gaining jurisdiction over someone in a foreign country, etc. The problem basically boils down to things like: "If the Lesbians want to sue, say, a U.S. group in Greece, will the court accept jurisdiction or throw out the case? If the court accepts jurisdiction, chances are the U.S. group will not appear, and the Lesbians will win a default judgment against it. Then the question is, whether the Lesbians can get a U.S. court to recognize the judgment and enforce it." Or: "If the Lesbians want to sue the U.S. group in U.S. court, how will the court's choice-of-law provisions operate? [Just because you sue in, say, California, doesn't necessarily mean California law aplies.] Can the Lesbians get the court to choose an operative set of laws that actually gives them a cause of action?" International law and conflict of laws are hellishly complicated areas like that, but there aren't really any deep philosophical dilemmas involved, just mechanical operation of complicated rules. States have similar problems amongst themselves when they try to tax each other's municipal bonds or refuse to recognize each other's civil unions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 04:38 am (UTC)When people say things are a matter of "international law", they usually mean not that there is some universal set of laws that all nations obey -- because such a thing doesn't exist -- but more that there are complicated issues with applying one nation's laws within another nation's borders, or gaining jurisdiction over someone in a foreign country, etc. The problem basically boils down to things like: "If the Lesbians want to sue, say, a U.S. group in Greece, will the court accept jurisdiction or throw out the case? If the court accepts jurisdiction, chances are the U.S. group will not appear, and the Lesbians will win a default judgment against it. Then the question is, whether the Lesbians can get a U.S. court to recognize the judgment and enforce it." Or: "If the Lesbians want to sue the U.S. group in U.S. court, how will the court's choice-of-law provisions operate? [Just because you sue in, say, California, doesn't necessarily mean California law aplies.] Can the Lesbians get the court to choose an operative set of laws that actually gives them a cause of action?" International law and conflict of laws are hellishly complicated areas like that, but there aren't really any deep philosophical dilemmas involved, just mechanical operation of complicated rules. States have similar problems amongst themselves when they try to tax each other's municipal bonds or refuse to recognize each other's civil unions.