Re: Adam Starr

There are basically three legal systems, common law, civil law and secular,
as far as structure is concerned.  Russia, USSR, commonwealth had a
civil-Napoleonic system since Cathryn.  Only the players changed.  There are
many variations, but they all function alike.
    An analysis must be done then in terms of power.  Structure influences
behavior and the distribution and exercise of power.   The multinationals
have the power currently to define and impliment the structure and the
concensus of the transnationals is that a codified system is most efficient
and best for them.  There need be no consensus, only the power to make and
impliment decrees.  With such a system, there is power to dictate economics,
trade, slavery, distribution of wealth and resources.
    International law is becoming irrelevant with the power concentration
that presently exists.  The superpower defines the international law.  It
claims to be spreading democracy, but is instead exporting something else.
The most extreme form of Napoleonic civil law is martial law.  International
law is a series of contracts, which can be abrogated by the powerful, but
has the potential to usurp constitutional power of governments and their
constituents or citizens.
     The only curb on this power is not with international tribunals, but
with the courts of particular nations that have the ability to declare such
agreements unconstitutional.
    Otherwise, the power must be curbed by the conflict generated by local
or regional interests.