DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - The Russians know how to deal with pirates...

**zilsolley3** · 07-05-2010, 02:32 PM

I am not supporting the pillaging of Somalia, I have supported using the very same anti-piracy forces stationed there for fishery protections. I would support nation building efforts there. Al-quida is there, and its only a matter of time before they nab a LNG tanker and try driving it into a major port city before blowing it and the city up.

But no law on the face of the Earth allows a victim to steal a 3rd parties stuff.

Ah, but in many cases, there is a legal doctrine called The Clean Hands Doctrine:

Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". Unclean hands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Clean Hands Doctrine is being applied at the international level. (The quote below is just the first of several instances in the link.) So don't think that the countries that are dumping toxic waste and fishing illegally get a pass here and the Somalis will be punished as the aggressor. That will not happen if justice (equity) is ever done. And history has a way of doing justice.

[p. 272 D.O. Schwebel] In contemporary international law, the State which first undertakes specified unprovoked, unlawful uses of force against another State - such as substantial involvement in the sending of armed bands onto its territory - is, prima facie, the aggressor. On examination, Nicaragua's status as the prima facie aggressor can only be definitively confirmed. Moreover, Nicaragua has compounded its delictual behaviour by pressing false testimony on the Court in a deliberate effort to conceal it. Accordingly, on both grounds, Nicaragua does not come before the Court with clean hands. Judgment in its favour is thus unwarranted, and would be unwarranted even if it should be concluded - as it should not be - that the responsive actions of the United States were unnecessary or disproportionate. World Court Digest

07-05-2010, 02:32 PM	#33
zilsolley3 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 446 Senior Member	I am not supporting the pillaging of Somalia, I have supported using the very same anti-piracy forces stationed there for fishery protections. I would support nation building efforts there. Al-quida is there, and its only a matter of time before they nab a LNG tanker and try driving it into a major port city before blowing it and the city up. But no law on the face of the Earth allows a victim to steal a 3rd parties stuff. Ah, but in many cases, there is a legal doctrine called The Clean Hands Doctrine: Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". Unclean hands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Clean Hands Doctrine is being applied at the international level. (The quote below is just the first of several instances in the link.) So don't think that the countries that are dumping toxic waste and fishing illegally get a pass here and the Somalis will be punished as the aggressor. That will not happen if justice (equity) is ever done. And history has a way of doing justice. [p. 272 D.O. Schwebel] In contemporary international law, the State which first undertakes specified unprovoked, unlawful uses of force against another State - such as substantial involvement in the sending of armed bands onto its territory - is, prima facie, the aggressor. On examination, Nicaragua's status as the prima facie aggressor can only be definitively confirmed. Moreover, Nicaragua has compounded its delictual behaviour by pressing false testimony on the Court in a deliberate effort to conceal it. Accordingly, on both grounds, Nicaragua does not come before the Court with clean hands. Judgment in its favour is thus unwarranted, and would be unwarranted even if it should be concluded - as it should not be - that the responsive actions of the United States were unnecessary or disproportionate. World Court Digest
	Quote