There's a very interesting book called "An Introduction to Islamic Law" by Wael B. Hallaq. I definitely recommend it if you're interested in learning more about the implementation of Islamic law through history.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Islamic-Law-Wael-Hallaq/dp/0521678730

In my opinion, there are three major false assumptions among many Muslims in regards to Islamic law and the Islamic state. First of all, that there is a single definition of shariah and a shariah-based state. There isn't and there never was in pre-modern, pre-colonial Muslim world. Shariah was implemented differently both within caliphates and between caliphates. In broad strokes: legal disputes were brought to the qadi (judge) who was appointed by the caliph directly or through intermediaries. He based his legal decisions on either legal precedent (taqlid) formulated by legal scholars /lawmakers (muftis) or the independent reasoning of said muftis (ijtihad). But then, the muftis don't necessarily agree? Just like lawmakers in modern time don't necessarily agree (majority vs. minority opinion in a court for instance). And perhaps they disagree because they use different methodologies thus the different legal schools (madhab) in Islamic jurisprudence.

What's amazing and quite beautiful about the shariah is the intellectual complexity of it all. But in a more practical sense what happens then (as we also see in modern times in questions such as "is interest-based mortgage allowed?"), is that there is a choice. In most cases the qadi would listen to the mufti appointed to a certain district or a court, or even follow the school favoured by the caliphs. And if the disagreement persisted it, they'd take it to the grand mufti (basically, the supreme court) who most likely was a scholar in the legal tradition favoured by the caliph. But what we then realize is that there was quite a bit of legal variation in pre-modern Muslim empires. And that variation could be because the empires were huge and decentralised. One court in one district would differ from a neighbouring court, and it wouldn't have any significant consequences.


So the second assumption is that it is possible to implement this great legal variation in a centralised, modern state that has fixed legislature. How do you that? Hallaq in the aforementioned book discusses this in great length by referencing other scholars. For instance, contract law differs between the traditional legal schools? What interpretations would you choose to put in your law book? And if your constituents adhere to different madhabs?

You could just force one opinion on everybody as they do in some Muslim countries today. But that's brutal, in my opinion and in opposition to the historic complexity of the shariah.

Imam Ghazali, theologian and philosopher, formulated the purposes of shariah (maqasid al-sharia). Rather than asking what does the shariah say about X, Y and Z. Let's ask what's the shariah supposed to do. And in his own words the shariah is supposed to preserve life, intellect, religion, property and offspring.

I believe what many deem "un-islamic" ideologies are capable of doing that and perhaps even more so than the laissez-faire capitalism of many Muslim countries.

So lastly the third false assumption which isn't necessarily wrong, but misguided: there are certain matters that traditional theologians simply don't answer even if one tried to base an entire political system on a notion of "one shariah". Like, a comprehensive economic theory.

You mention social democracy. Most social democracies adhere to some sort of a mixed-economy or variations on a Keynesian model. Basically: capitalism is okay, but the state should maintain control of the market (i.e fiscal responsibility). Is that more or less Islamic than Hayek's economic theory (capitalism is great, and the state should absolutely not regulate the market)? What about Marxist economy (capitalism is bad, the state should own the market)? Or even something totally else not formulated by a dead white guy?

Muslims differ and disagree on this - as they should. So my thing is, as a Muslim, I consider what the purposes of my Islamic ethics are (Ghazali's maqaasid) and then I use the intellect God has granted me to find out the best way and the best system to preserve life, intellect, religion, property and offspring.

In my case and in Western terms that would be being a socialist in terms of acknowledging both class struggle and the role of a strong government in combatting social and economic inequity. However, also social democrat/Keynesian in that I'm not opposed to capitalism and accept that free market drives innovation. And I guess I'm quite the liberal as well (not in the American, "I watch CNN"-sense) in that I believe in freedom from government. Especially in the private sphere. No government should regulate how I carry my life as long as I don't hurt others.

It's fun figuring all this out! And does spend a life time just doing that. Especially in your late teens early twenties. I did! Read alot, is my suggestion!

Here's a list of the key books in the field that I'm familiar with (by name and general contents, I've only actually read a few of them). I'm mainly focusing on what is relevant to the study of Twelver Shi'ism; there aren't many English language books on Zaidism, as far as I'm aware, and for Isma'ilism you can start with the works of Farhad Daftary.

I'll start with important works providing an overview of the area, and then give a rough breakdown by "era" (I may be a bit off regarding the era, and many of these books straddle two or more eras, so be warned). This list does not emphasize geographic studies of Shi'ism in various areas and countries, and rather traces the "core narrative" of the development of Shi'i intellectual history, which is typically thought of as happening in what is now modern day Iran, Iraq, and (especially in the post-Mongol/pre-Safavid era) Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in Bahrain. Once you've read the initial works, you should have a good idea about what's going on in each era, and you can pick and choose what to read based on your interests.

If you have no background in general Islamic history, you should first pick up a book on that subject. Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted is an accessible non-academic book on general Islamic history (with an entertaining audiobook read by the author). If you want something heavier and more academic, Marshall G.S. Hodgson's The Venture of Islam is the classic three-volume reference in the field of Islamic studies, although it's a bit dated, especially in the third volume (covering the so-called "Gunpowder Empires"). Note that the standard introductory text on Shi'ism has long been Moojan Momen's book An Introduction to Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism, but this book is now a bit dated. Heinz Halm also has some surveys, but I'm less familiar with these; likewise for the surveys of Farhad Daftary (who is better known for his work on Isma'ilism than general Shi'ism).

Surveys, Background, and Introduction

• Najam Haider's Shi'i Islam: An Introduction. This is a unique take on introducing Shi'ism that starts with what makes Shi'ism theologically distinct; the book also devotes roughly equal attention to the Zaidi, Isma'ili, and Twelver branches of the faith.
  
• Hossein Modaressi's An Introduction to Shi'i Law: A Bibliographical Study. Chapter 4 provides a very concise, yet fairly thorough overview of the history of the development of Shi'i legal theory; Chapters 1-3 can be read as "optional" background, while the rest is a bibliographical overview that is unlikely to be of interest to a non-specialist.
  
• Andrew J. Newman's Twelver Shiism: Unity and Diversity in the Life of Islam, 632 to 1722. A solid history of Twelver Shi'ism from its beginnings to the end of the Safavid period.
  
• Roy Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran. While ostensibility an intellectual history of Iran spanning centuries, this is a great introductory look at various aspects of Shi'ism, particularly as it concerns learning in the seminaries.
  
  The Succession and the so-called "Rashidun" Era
  
  
• Wilfred Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Calpihate
  
• S.M.H. Jafri's The Origins and Early Development of Shi'i Islam
  
  The Imams and Early Shi'is in the Ummayid and `Abbasid Eras
  
  
• Arzina Lalani's Early Shi'i Thought: The Contribution of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir
  
• Najam Haider's The Origins of the Shi'a: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Kufa
  
• Maria Massi Dakake's The Charismatic Community: Shi'ite Identity in Early Islam
  
• Hossein Modarressi's Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of Shi'ite Islam: Abu Ja'far Ibn Qiba Al-Razi and His Contribution to Imamite Shi'ite Thought. Considered the standard book on the "rationalist/moderate/shortcoming" view of Imamate.
  
• Mohammad Ali Amir Moezzi's The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam. Considered the standard book on the esoteric / "High Imamology" view of Imamate.
  
• Jasim M. Hussain's The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam (A Historical Background)
  
• Andrew J. Newman's The Formative Period of Twelver Shi'ism: Hadith as Discourse Between Qum and Baghdad
  
• Meir M. Bar-Asher's Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imami Shiism
  
  The Buyid, Seljuq, and Mongol Eras
  
  
• Martin J. McDermott's The Theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022)
  
• Devin J. Stewart's Islamic Legal Orthodoxy. Some people have reservations about this book, so you might want to look at some reviews. It covers the Shi'i school of Shaykh Tusi engaging in juristic legal borrowing from the Shafi'i Sunni school, if I'm not mistaken.
  
• Etan Kohlberg's A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work: Ibn Tawus and His Library. This is perhaps a little different from most other books on this list in scope, style, and focus.
  
  The Safavid Era and the Scholars of Jabal Amil
  
  
• Rula Abisaab's Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire
  
• Robert Gleave's Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbari Shi'i School
  
  The Iranian Interregnum Era
  
  
• Zachary M. Heern's The Emergence of Modern Shi'ism: Islamic Reform in Iraq and Iran
  
• Robert Gleave's Inevitable Doubt: Two Theories of Shi'i Jurisprudence. This is definitely worth a look if you're interested in details concerning Shi'i legal theory proper.
  
  The Qajar Era
  
  
• Hamid Algar's Religion and State in Iran 1785-1906: The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period. This book is about fifty years old now, but I think it's still the standard reference for this topic.
  
• Meir Litvak's Shi'i Scholars of Nineteenth-Century Iraq: The 'Ulama' of Najaf and Karbala'
  
  The Contemporary Era / Miscellaneous
  
  
• Liyakat Nathani Takim's Shi'ism in America. I said I'd stay away from the more geographically focused books, but I think this one in particular might appeal to a lot of people; mainly those living in the West in general, and North America in particular.
  
  
• Linda S. Walbridge's The Thread of Mu'awiya: The Making of a Marja' Taqlid. A book with a strange title about the foremost Shi'i scholars in the contemporary age; while published posthumously in the 2010s, the book is based on research conducted in the 1990s. I think it contains a lot of valuable information and an interesting perspective, but I also find some of it to be informed by lazy misconceptions or generalizations, although I'm quite sure the author would have substantially reworked this project had she lived longer.
  
• Ata Anzali's Mysticism in Iran: The Safavid Roots of a Modern Concept. This should provide information on irfan.
  
• Kamran Scot Aghaie's The Martyrs of Karbala: Shi'i Symbols and Rituals in Modern Iran. This covers the evolution of the Karbala narrative in Modern Iran (in the Qajar, Pahlavi, and post-Revolutionary eras, respectively).
  
• Matthew Pierce's Twelve Infallible Men: The Imams and the Making of Shi'ism. This book examines how the genre of the biographies of the Imams was formed (this may be a better fit in one of the above categories, but I'm less familiar with this book, so I'm not sure which era(s) is/are the focus).

I will try, but it is fairly complex. Corrections welcomed.

A great overview of all this stuff is in "Brexit: What the hell happens now?" by Ian Dunt. Recommended reading.

Overview

The Single Market and the Customs Union put together are a bunch of countries who collaborate to allow each other to buy and sell goods without any interference. Just as Birmingham and Glasgow are able to trade within the UK just by driving the goods from A to B, so France and Germany can trade within the EU (all EU countries are member of both the SM and the CU).

The Single Market

Interference (also called "trade barriers" or "friction") which exist outside the EU includes stuff like tariffs (taxes on goods that are imported to the market), quotas (only allowing a maximum amount of goods in), and compliance checks.

The Single Market is concerned with Compliance Checks, and the Customs Union is concerned with tariffs and quotas.

Compliance checks mean (for example) that if you want to sell a vacuum cleaner in the EU, it has to conform to the EU regulations. Maximum power consumption, maybe. Various safety standards.

To get your vacuum cleaner certified as conforming to all the EU regulations takes time and costs a lot. You have to pay an authorised body to make the checks and get it certified.

Then, when your vacuums arrive at the border, Customs officers are going to open the lorry and check that they are what you have said they are on the shipping manifest. This also takes time. They might also send one machine off for testing, to make sure you really are complying. Otherwise smugglers could just send any old thing through, once they got certified.

Your goods can be delayed for days or even weeks due to border checks.

The Single Market allows France to send goods to Poland (for example) without the lorry being stopped even once for such checks. The goods are assumed to be compliant with all EU rules and regulations because they originate within the Single Market. The lorry just sails on through.

Though that is also, in part, due to the Customs Union.

The Customs Union

The Customs Union is the way that the EU deals with tariffs on goods coming in to the Single Market from non-EU countries (as opposed to goods travelling around inside the market, between France and Poland).

All the countries in the Single Market have to impose the same tariffs on goods that come from outside. Otherwise, if Ireland charged 5% on (say) Chinese tea, but France charged 10%, suppliers would send all their tea to Ireland and then transport it (via the single market - with no lorry stops) to France. They can then sell it cheaper in France than they should be able to.

So France makes sure that they have the same tariff as Ireland.

Quotas (maximum amount allowed to be imported) are also shared. The EU (as a body) might agree with the USA that the EU will impose a 2% tariff on American air conditioners, and there will be a quota of 10,000 per year. US companies can then sell 10,000 air con units to the countries in the Customs Union. Anywhere in it. But once that quota is filled, the US companies have to stop selling until next year.

Having all the Customs Union countries share the quotas is again important because otherwise the USA could import 5,000 to Ireland, and then 6,000 to France - thus exceeding the limit. So the countries must share the quotas and let each other know how many have come in.

Goods within a Customs Union can move more freely than those outside. But there are limits.

Turkey (partial Customs Union only)

Turkey currently has a Customs Union with the EU. But it only relates to certain goods. For these goods, Turkey pays no tariff and has no quota when exporting to the EU. Turkey also charges the same tariff and enforces the same external quotas as the EU does - so no outside countries get an advantage by importing through Turkey.

However, this means that Turkey have to obey EU laws and regulations for all the goods which are covered by their Customs Union. Otherwise, firms could just move to Turkey, bypass regulations, and then move the cheaper goods into the EU and sell them there.

But since not all goods are covered, lorries will be checked to see that they are carrying what they claim to be carrying. There is still a "hard border" between Turkey and the UK, despite there being a Customs Union.

Norway (Single Market only)

Norway is in a different position: they are in the Single Market but not in the Customs Union. They can set their own tariffs with other countries. But goods can pass (almost) freely over the border to the EU. Because Norway are in the Single Market and follow all the laws and regulations, goods do not have to be checked for compliance (they will be checked by Norway on arrival from other countries and are from then on fine). The Norway border means you stop, tell the customs agent what you are carrying, pay any tariffs necessary (or prove they have been paid) and then carry on about your business.

So note that being in either a Customs Union or the Single Market still means that you have to have a hard border, with stops and checks in order to preserve the integrity of those bodies. Otherwise they become easy to bypass.

EU countries (both)

EU countries are in both, so there are no border checks needed for any traffic going between EU countries. At least, not for goods. They might want to check for illegal immigrants, and countries can still close their borders for security reasons (eg a terrorist is on the loose so all passports will be checked and searches may be made).

EEA

The EEA is a group of countries which subscribe to the Four Freedoms of the Single Market. Not all countries are in the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland are not in the EU but are in the EEA.

Those countries have to follow most EU laws and regulations. Norway has exemptions for fishing and agriculture.

The EEA is open to members of the EU, and members of EFTA (European Free Trade Association). EFTA consists of Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.

EFTA was originally set up to compete with the EU (or the EEC as it was then called). The UK was a founding member. However, it became clear that the EEC was doing a lot better. The UK and Denmark withdrew in 1973, and joined the EU instead. Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Sweden later followed suit.

The remaining countries (Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, and Iceland) are now in the EU Single Market to a greater or lesser degree but are not in the Customs Union.

Implications of withdrawing

Withdrawing from the Customs Union would allow the UK to do its own trade deals in terms of tariff and quotas. It would introduce paperwork required for goods to cross between the EU and the UK and payment of tariffs (unless a free trade agreement is in place - but that would probably introduce a "country of origin" check so that the USA couldn't send goods to the UK for a lower tariff and then move them into the EU.

In UK terms, this would mean goods from Birmingham would be stopped at the Scottish border while customs taxed them and made sure they were from England.


Withdrawing from the Single Market would require paperwork, compliance checks, lorry searches. A much harder border to sustain those.

In UK terms, this would mean the Scottish border agents physically examining the goods in the lorries, taking one for testing, and forcing the lorry to wait until the process completed. This could take weeks. Agricultural produce can spoil. That's tough luck and the risk the farmer took when they accepted an order from outside their free trade area. This was one of the primary drivers behind creating the EU and allowing "frictionless" trade - trade without these checks.

Withdrawing from both means all of the above.

Hope that helps! Any questions, ask.

Ok now we're cooking. This book is about that basically.

https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion

Also relevant:

https://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Legal-Innovation-Western-World/dp/0521881749
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500596

You can find those free online somewhere.

I could have just linked that at the beginning but I think it's important to think more seriously about these questions. I was referring to the American constitution and if you think about how you operationalize such a concept (which really means to define it coherently) you can think about how one would measure such a thing in the United States. Does the United States have freedom of speech? What's the relationship between the letter of the law and concrete reality? How important is the law and what does freedom of speech, if it is related to the law, relate to the withering away of the state? What is the genealogy of 'rights,' what is their material basis, and what is the limit of the concept? You can point out that every freedom in the American constitution was in the Soviet constitution and their legal system was objectively better by bourgeois liberal standards at the time period in question. But that's sort of lazy, we know socialism is superior and that liberals don't actually arrive at their ideology through reason. So who really cares what they think in their dishonestly framed questions about a theory they knows nothing about?

I've read great things about Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. It was just released a few months ago so I'm hoping it will help me better understand current events and Obama's presidency.

Also, I thought his book American Empire was interesting, which he published in 2002. Bacevich is, by the way, a conservative. I don't want to misrepresent his ideas, so I encourage you to read the book. But there's an idea I marked that I'll quote.

> When it comes to the fundamentals of U.S. policy...continuities loom large...In practice, Clinton and his advisers drew on basic ideas that Bush (41) and his team had already put in play and that, indeed, formed the received wisdom of American statecraft accumulated across a century or more.

> In that regard, five ideas stand out—each one embraced by Bush, each figuring in Clinton’s rearticulation of U.S. strategy: the identification of interdependence as the dominant reality of international politics; a commitment to advancing the cause of global openness; an emphasis on free trade and investment as central to that strategy and a prerequisite for prosperity at home; a belief in the necessity of American hegemony—while avoiding any actual use of that term; and frequent reference to the bugbear of “isolationism” as a means of disciplining public opinion and maintaining deference to the executive branch in all matters pertaining to foreign relations.

edit: i didn't mention the arab spring, as for that, i recalled a passage from a theory of international terrorism (free pdf can be found online)

> If Islamic political parties were allowed to contest elections, they are feared to win elections on anti-US and anti-Israel platforms.13 In Jordan and Egypt, for example, anti-Israel religious parties would easily sweep freely held general elections. If democratically elected Islamic parties come to power, they would denounce the peace treaties with Israel and adopt anti-US foreign policies. Knowing this, Israelis see an existential threat in democratization of the Muslim world. Since US national interests may diverge from those of Israel, a democratic Muslim world may drive a wedge between Israel and the US. If the US were to sacrifice its own interests for the sake of preserving the US-Israel alliance, a democratic Muslim world would be further estranged from the US. In either case, free democ- racy in the Middle East would pose new challenges to US military, security, and economic interests in the world. To avoid these developments, both the US and Israel support a distorted notion of democracy that suppresses religious parties from contesting elections and assuming power.

>Ummm please stop making up total BS and acting like you know what you're talking about when you quite obviously do not.

Reality: All claims have been sourced.

>Allow me to educate you a bit.

>https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0199377898

Reality: Linking books from one international lawyer's opinions does not constitute a specific response to any claim made.

>The NPT and the IAEA are two separate things. The IAEA is not a nuclear weapons police force in charge of finding hidden nuclear weapons programs, it is just another international organization in charge of promoting nuclear power by setting stadnards etc.

Reality: True, and uncontested in any post.

>The NPT requires signatories to maintain safeguards with the IAEA (the one Iran signed in 1974 was the standard as that signed by other countries)

Reality: True, and uncontested.

>had you actually read it and understood it you'd see this -- the role of the IAEA is

>EXCLUSIVELY to measure the amount of nuclear material and compare it to the countries declarations to ensure that there has been no diversion of nuclear material to non-peaceful uses

Reality: True, and uncontested. The original claim made was that military sites must be opened for inspection on suspicion of violation of safeguards even under the NPT, making Iranian refusal of any grounds for inspection appear threatening to Saudi Arabia, rightly or wrongly.

>which the IAEA has certified to be the case in every single IAEA report on Iran, ever.

Reality: Misleading, at best.

Reality: A 2011 IAEA report noted that the IAEA can verify non-diversion of declared material, but due to Iranian non-cooperation, cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran (p. 10). The IAEA therefore said it could not verify that Iran's program was "entirely peaceful". This is contrary to the goal of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement concluded with Iran, which states in Article 1:

>The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied, in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all
peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of Iran, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its
control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Reality: The IAEA could not undertake this function because Iranian noncompliance made it impossible to have "credible assurance" of Iranian use of nuclear material solely for peaceful purposes.

>So I suggest you educate yourself before spouting total nonsense

Reality: All claims are sourced.

>http://lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/index.htm

Reality: Does not contest any point directly. Unclear response.

>Iran supports Hezbollah, a legitimate Lebanese political party that won massive support in parliamentary elections there

Reality: Hezbollah won 2 additional seats. Hezbollah's allies made significant gains, but are not Iranian-backed groups with military presence. Hezbollah retains 13 seats in a 128 seat Parliament.

Reality: Hezbollah's political clout does not change its terrorist status. The group remains a terrorist organization in the eyes of the liberal world. Hezbollah continues to plan and organize attacks targeting civilians for political purposes.

>Iran backed Nelson Mandela when the US had labeled him a terrorist

Reality: Source required.

>and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to tthe racist apartheid regime in S Africa, so what's your point?

Reality: This has been contested heavily, but the only allegations relate to allegations of an Israeli offer of sale in March 1975. This would be prior to the Iranian Revolution, and therefore could not physically be during the time you claim that Iran was backing Nelson Mandela, unless you are referring to the Shah backing Mandela.

>And ps there's no distinction between "private financiers" and the Saudi officials when it comes to state money there.

Reality: False. The Saudi government has, in the past, cracked down on private financiers. It has not done this regularly, but there is a separation that has turned towards crackdowns in recent years, despite prior ambivalence or tacit support.

>"There were parts coming from Iran, there was parts also coming from other countries" said Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche. "I cannot say from what I see on the ground that Iran is behind that." http://www.ctvnews.ca/top-general-says-no-evidence-iran-behind-ieds-1.269717

Reality: Article is from 2008. This is highly misleading. Afghan officials do not allege mere arms transfers. US intelligence does not allege mere arms transfers, but also funding. RAND think-tank reports describe this in further detail historically.

Reality: Article quotes NATO refusal to name Iran as source of IED materials. NATO's head in 2016 explicitly named Iran as a funding source for the Taliban. Your information is outdated.

>"We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it is smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSFLE35878420070604

Reality: Incorporate above response. Also note article date of June 2007. US SecDef Gates said less than two weeks later that intelligence did tie Iran's government to the shipments.

Reality: US SecDef Gates reiterated that Iran was supporting the Taliban in 2010 under President Obama.

Reality: You are misrepresenting the information presented with misleading and outdated sources.

>British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html

Reality: Article is also from October 2006. Please incorporate above responses.

Reality: In 2008, British special forces uncovered evidence of Iran funding the Taliban.

Reality: In 2007, the British Army reported Iran supplies of missiles to the Taliban for use on British troops.

Reality: In 2011, British forces seized shipments of Iranian weapons bound for the Taliban.

Reality: You distorted and misled once more.

>Top US General: No Evidence Iran Arming Iraqis http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17129144/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-general-no-evidence-iran-arming-iraqis/

Reality: Note article date of February 2007. Incorporate above sources.

Reality: Note article relates to arms to Iraqis, not Taliban.

Reality: In April 2007, two months after your article, Gen. Peter Pace stated that Iran was sending weapons to Iraq.

>Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq Arms link http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/23/world/fg-iraniraq23/2

Reality: Note article date is January 2007. Incorporate above points, which thoroughly rebut argument.

>The US even refused Iranian cooperation over Al Qaeda

Reality: True, but uncontested and unrelated to above points.

>Iran even offered to give BinLadin's son to the US but the Bush admin refused

Reality: True, but uncontested, and unrelated. Bin Laden's fourth son, a middling operative, was not a high-value target as well.

Reality: Your own sources have all stated Iran funded, aided, and abetted Taliban and Iraqi militia actions. The 9/11 Commission Report and Bin Laden files confirm that Iran has assisted Al Qaeda. Iran has assisted Hezbollah. Iran has assisted Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. Iran has at times not complied with IAEA Safeguards Agreements credibly, and is required under these agreements to open military sites for inspection upon suspicion per former deputy director-general of the IAEA Olli Heinonen and the Agreements and the IAEA Board of Governors, but refuses to open any military sites for any reason. This has, for good reason or not, led to fear by the Saudis, who have thus withdrawn their support for the JCPOA.

China's space strategy by Stacey Solomone is offers a short, sharp insight into the Chinese plans, what they have done, motivations, and the way they operate. It's quite a useful book for trying to make sense of things, though not very detailed.

Some of the main points were that, contrary to popular belief, China's aerospace industry will soon be innovating independently, rather than copying. In human spaceflight, while they have made few crewed launches (five, 6th this year), they've made big leaps between each.

Overall, China's got a load of plans, which don't receive much coverage. They are working on a number of fronts, including new rockets (Long March 5, debuting in Sep/Oct this year, will be comparable to Delta IV heavy), Earth observation, space science (dark matter probe & 3 more this year), a 60 ton, modular space station (core module scheduled to go up in 2018), lunar exploration (Chang'e-4 as you note and a sample return (Chang'e-5) in 2017) and the Beidou nav/positioning system. These amount to a huge, ambitious commitment, and it will be interesting if they can keep the pace - especially given the current economic wobbles in China.

Regarding policy and direction, in March China will announce its next five year plan (2016-2020), and we should be able to learn about (some) future plans. Following this, a new space white paper will be released near the end of the year, in which priorities will be laid out. The current, from 2011, can be found here if you're really keen. Hope that helps.

It's being destabilized. People across the Atlantic are also being subjective to new legislation that was unprecedented in the past. IMO I humbly state that globalization will result in two cooperative governments the US and the EU that will work to dominate the resources of the planet. It's just what I think is happening and why so many smaller nations are being resourced and controlled economically so that we can use them as stables or mills for food and resources as the current stock will only last so long. I also have hear an Indian scholar speak on NPR about the prospect of future food wars but cannot recall her book. It was a very interesting session and prompted me to start growing my own vegetables . But look, read this. You can decide: It has great reviews.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Deception-European-Union-Survive/dp/0826480144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243540819&sr=8-1

By M. T. Mcaleer (UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? (Paperback)
Anyone who cares about our system of democracy must read this book. I hope that if David Cameron wins the next election he sends a copy of this book to every MP. He might then appreciate that he should have stuck to his guns with his "cast iron gurantee" for a referendum.

When the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1971, we were assured that aethere is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty. Successive Governments have effectively ceded legislative powers to an unelected bureaucracy, namely, the European Commission. It has been estimated that 75% of new laws, directives etc stem from Brussels. With the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, we are almost at the point of being subsumed into a European superstate. The evidence in this book is both compelling and frightening in terms of how we have collectively been deceived by our politicians.

This one too:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Great-European-Rip-off-Wasteful/dp/1847945708/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t
In this EU election year, it's time for people across Europe to look at what really goes on in Brussels in our name.

It has been estimated that the EU costs us around £1,000 billion a year - an incredible £2000 for every man, woman and child in Europe. So what do we get for our money? Politicians and administrators selflessly working to bring us efficient government? Well-targeted regulations that promote economic prosperity? A safe and free society? A well-protected environment? Help for people in poorer countries?

Or is our money being squandered by a self-serving euro-elite of unaccountable politicians and incompetent bureaucrats, or else devoured in a feeding frenzy of fraud and corruption where a few lucky insiders become unimaginably rich at our expense? And is the tsunami of regulation pouring out of Brussels in reality strangling industry, destroying jobs, restricting personal freedom, desecrating the environment and further impoverishing the developing world?

Using their extensive network of insider sources, David Craig and Matthew Elliott smash through the secrecy and disinformation that are the Brussels hallmark to reveal what our European rulers are really getting up to. The result is a horrifying story of bureaucracy, hypocrisy and kleptocracy - and how we are all suffering as a result.

The Member States of the United Nations - an international organization - recognize borders by recognizing States. Hence, why I said:

> the international community does in fact determine borders.

Here is how that happens.

The UN as an organization enforces and protects those borders. This takes place in a variety of ways.

If you want to understand more about how States became the primary political actor that make rules vis-a-vis each other, this book will help you learn more about that.

If you'd like to learn more about how States use and delegate power to International Organizations in order to solve international problems, this book will help you do that.

If you'd like to learn more about how the UN System works to enforce borders, this book will help you do that.

Someone posted a website where you can find free books on the non-politics thread. You can probably find pdf copies of each of these books (though personally I just keep them on my shelf to read in a more tangible form and for quick reference).

It is a pretty common way to refer to American legal traditions that were imported from England. Common law and Anglo-American law are used somewhat interchangeably although they arguably have slightly different meanings. In the context Sessions said it, Anglo-American actually makes more sense because it more all encompassing when referring to American legal institutions taken from England than simply saying common law. Common law is a body of law and a system of legal reasoning. Anglo-American legal traditions encompass institutions beyond simply the body of law and the system of legal reasoning. Here is a good tweet thread that lays out a few examples of an Obama era DOJ official using the term as well as a Democratic senator and a Supreme Court justice.

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/963173679994753027

Here are a few legal books that use the terms almost interchangeably in their titles.

https://www.amazon.com/History-Common-Law-Anglo-American-Institutions/dp/0735562903

https://www.amazon.com/Form-Substance-Anglo-American-Law-Institutions/dp/0198257341

https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Introduction-Anglo-American-Law-Nutshell/dp/0314747087

https://library.law.yale.edu/anglo-american-legal-heritage-introductory-materials

Also, Encyclopedia.com treats them as interchangeable.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/common-law-anglo-american

A fascinating question! And, fortunately, one that has been the subject of a recent rise in research. One important line of work is by Wendy Espeland and co-authors on "quantification." The two most relevant papers are "Rankings and Reactivity" and "The Discipline of Rankings". There's also an interesting new line of work by some Law and Society scholars about the proliferation of rankings in global governance. An edited volume on the subject is here (quite expensive!), and there are also a few papers if you search Google Scholar for things like indicators + Sally Engle Merry.

Beyond that, you might check out Michele Lamont's work on the more general process of valuation and evaluation.

I hope that helps!

>50 good boy points to /sg/. Don't spend it all on tendies at once, kiddo (be flattered, that's fam).

Well color me tickled, never thought I'd run into a fellow r/tendies poster on a board devoted to SCW discussion . . . err I mean fuck your normie nuggie R2REEEEEE doctrine!

>The "REEE get off my sub" stuff in my earlier reply probably wasn't helpful. I'm annoyed by the GanjaGremlins and elboydos who have become so common and voluble on this sub, just like I'd be annoyed if a bunch of "Bush did nothing wrong" neocon circlejerkers showed up. Hopefully you aren't in that category.

I'm definitely not in that category dude, I'm a regime supporter and I hope Assad wins this war but I'm not blind to what the regime has done in terms of atrocities, I just think they're the lesser of the evils we've been presented so far. And I agree with most of what you said about limited cross border incursions to attack IS in Syria, that does have some support in customary state practice lately. I'm 100% positive that occupying land in this context is still illegal given traditional customary IL forbidding such forms of intervention in the civil wars of other nations.

I'd love to dork out on history and law with you further but I'm currently in the middle of exams and our response chain is growing to novella sized lengths. Anyway if you want to know the sources for my arguments the 2009 EU fact finding mission on Georgia is a good place to start (second report) where it used customary IL to show the illegality of the Russian intervention on behalf of South Ossetia and another source is this Bible of international humanitarian law:

https://www.amazon.com/Law-Armed-Conflict-International-Humanitarian/dp/0521870887

Definitely worth checking out if you're into learning about IHL jus ad bellum and jus in bello, because a lot of what we are discussing as you said is not formally settled law. This book does an excellent job of showing the current state of the law on the issues we're discussing, I wrote my law journal paper on the Russian intervention in the SCW last year and cited this book more than any on these issues.

Sure! I'm a law student specializing in international law. I've already written papers on the subject, and i would like to make it one of my specialties as a jurist. If you are interested, the ICRC itself has an entire mini site with vulgarized content and brochures that you can browse: http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/index.jsp. And if you are really interested to the point of reading a book on the subject the Holy ICRC (really, it's the reference in this topic) has issued a very good 300-pages book for non-jurist: http://www.amazon.com/Constraints-Waging-War-Introduction-International/dp/1107600324/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1406418513&sr=8-7&keywords=international+humanitarian+law

>Again, you've missed my point. What I personally want is not the point. Its about what is happening, irrespective of who wants it. The book I recommended you has over 400 excellent pages explaining.

Are you capable of engaging, or do you want to just quote a book that I'm obviously not going to read so that you can say 'well, if you don't want to learn...'

I suggest you go out and buy this book so that you understand the EU properly, and if you don't then I won't actually offer any points in its favour. You see how absurd this method is?

I'm not sure how it works to specialize your practice, but you might want to pickup the Tallin Manuals: https://smile.amazon.com/Tallinn-Manual-International-Applicable-Warfare/dp/1107613779/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g3905707922?_encoding=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0&ie=UTF8

You probably don't need industry certifications to successfully practice law with a focus in cyber, but then again idk how practicing law actually works. Might have more success asking in one of the lawerly subreddits.

Sadly, we are all forced to make choices about our life before we are equipped with the knowledge or experience to make those choices.

I think you've got solicitor and barrister a bit confused (ignoring solicitor advocates for now).

Lawyers interpret, represent and manipulate statute, caselaw and the "facts" for their clients. Both caselaw and statute are freely published, and the case law is far more fruity.

You might wish to start reading some of the case law and transcripts. Bailli is a fair start but can be dry.

Autobiography of some of the greats can be more fun. Michael Mansfield's auto is good, but he does become an arrogant arse regularly.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/014103453X is certainly regularly recommended is and it's also quite cheap.

Anyone can learn the law. Few can "make use of" the facts to establish a winning case. Concentrate on getting acquainted with the world and how it really works for that insight.

Travel and being among their peoples will help enormously - why people put themselves in situations (forming a business, falsely accused of a crime, protecting something of "value" against the state and other people).

no surprises here, China is currently playing catch-up. They will stabilise at a much lower level of GDP-per-capita than the US (in the next 10-20years, with growth trend slowing throughout the period). The only way they will get close to US productivity is by radical overhaul to their political and economic system, eg mass privatisation of state industries, freely floating currency, greater transparency of governance etc. These are all reforms that would erode power from the elites that currently enjoy it, so these changes are unlikely.

http://www.amazon.com/Bird-Cage-Legal-Reform-China/dp/0804743789
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Prosperity-ebook/dp/B0058Z4NR8

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

You should take a look at THIS BOOK which takes the points made in the article in to far more detail, although keeps it easy to understand, and makes it a genuinely good read - a pretty hard task on a topic so complex as Brexit.

You should look into the International Tax Nutshell book. It's a really good source and easy to maneuver through since you can search by code section or subject. If you click on the Amazon link to "look inside" the book, scroll down to section 2.05 (expatriation) and it should give you a good start. It's short and made much easier to understand than the IRC.

*Edit: I'm actually not sure about the 10-year issue you mentioned, but section 877(d)(2)(B) might be relevant.

Best one by an academic researcher:
An Introduction to Islamic Law by Wael Hallaq

Deals with its history, theory and contemporary practice.

Edit: an older submission:
A TLDR description of Islamic law in one paragraph

Uh oh, someone is pretending to be an international arms control lawyer on reddit and doesn't know who he's talking to.

>ocol. Iran's Safeguards Agreement from 1974 included a provision in Article 73 that allows the IAEA to inspect any site if they believe Iran's explanations and information furnished does not meet the standards of honesty and accuracy required





Ummm please stop making up total BS and acting like you know what you're talking about when you quite obviously do not.



This is not at all the case and you have nothing to back such a bs claim.



Allow me to educate you a bit.

https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0199377898

The NPT and the IAEA are two separate things. The IAEA is not a nuclear weapons police force in charge of finding hidden nuclear weapons programs, it is just another international organization in charge of promoting nuclear power by setting stadnards etc.

The NPT requires signatories to maintain safeguards with the IAEA (the one Iran signed in 1974 was the standard as that signed by other countries) and under the terms of this safeguards agreement you cited -- had you actually read it and understood it you'd see this -- the role of the IAEA is

EXCLUSIVELY to measure the amount of nuclear material and compare it to the countries declarations to ensure that there has been no diversion of nuclear material to non-peaceful uses which the IAEA has certified to be the case in every single IAEA report on Iran, ever.

So I suggest you educate yourself before spouting total nonsense


http://lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/index.htm

Iran supports Hezbollah, a legitimate Lebanese political party that won massive support in parliamentary elections there
Iran backed Nelson Mandela when the US had labeled him a terrorist and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to tthe racist apartheid regime in S Africa, so what's your point?

And ps there's no distinction between "private financiers" and the Saudi officials when it comes to state money there.

As for BS claims that Iran backed the Taliban or militias in Iraq

>"There were parts coming from Iran, there was parts also coming from other countries" said Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche. "I cannot say from what I see on the ground that Iran is behind that." http://www.ctvnews.ca/top-general-says-no-evidence-iran-behind-ieds-1.269717

Even US Sec Def Gates said he didn't have proof implicating Irans' govt in arming the Taliban

>"We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it is smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSFLE35878420070604

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html

Top US General: No Evidence Iran Arming Iraqis http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17129144/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-general-no-evidence-iran-arming-iraqis/

Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq Arms link http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/23/world/fg-iraniraq23/2

The US even refused Iranian cooperation over Al Qaeda

>Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested ... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-gave-us-help-on-al-qaeda-after-9-11/

Iran even offered to give BinLadin's son to the US but the Bush admin refused

>http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html

It's the constitutional difference between the US and the UK. "The state has rights onto the people" means there are some things the government simply cannot do legally and cannot change without rewriting its constitution. In the UK, parliament can do anything it wants, period. In practice it doesn't make a difference, but in history it's a huge difference between the language of the two governments. If you're genuinely interested, just read this. https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/014103453X/

Edit to make it more explicit: The idea of parliament doing anything by permission of the voters is an incredibly un-British one. Parliament does not govern by permission of the voters, it governs by royal prerogative. It governs because it is sovereign. It needs no permission from voters now, nor has it ever.

I personally like the ITax nutshell....


https://www.amazon.com/International-Taxation-Nutshell-West-Publishing/dp/0314275312


Use it in practice quite a bit

The legal definition of 'Autonomy' is 'The political independence of a nation; the right (and condition) of self-government' (source) under that definition, every EU member state doesn't have 'full autonomy' because it has to answer to the EU and implement EU legislation - no ifs, no buts, just do it.

The reason that happens is because the Maastricht Treaty was ratified in November 1993 bringing together all members of the 'European Community' under common legal principles, common provisions and common policies. (source, pages 14-17).

Since that time, every policy the EU has approved, member states must implement - unless they have a VETO. Many of the issues you mention, for example - broadcasting, copyright, defence, financial services, the financial market, data protection, employment, immigration, trade and industry, film classification, scientific procedures on live animals, national security and counter-terrorism, betting, gaming and lotteries, emergency powers, extradition, intellectual property, import and export control, customer protection, product standards, safety and liability, weights and measures, telecommunications, postal services, research councils, Energy (oil, gas, nuclear), Social Security, judicial salaries, equal opportunities, control of weapons of mass destruction, Ordnance Survey, Deep Sea mining and time are directly influenced by the EU which Westminster has zero influence over because of the Maastricht Treaty.

Here's a couple of examples:

1. EU lawmakers vote to scrap clock shifts in 2021
   
2. What is Article 13?
   
3. Joint Research, including Nuclear Energy and Cyber Security.
   
4. Europe’s sweeping privacy rule was supposed to change the internet, but so far it’s mostly created frustration for users, companies, and regulators
   
5. Employment Rights (UK Version, here) & Rights at Work
   
   Of course, that list isn't extensive, but you can also check out a longer list here.

I knew you'd be back!

"I'm not persuaded" versus "If we're being technical, it may be more accurate..." Which is more of a feeling again?

Even if you had "every dictionary ever created" on your desk, and consulted them all, it would not outweigh the contents of book I linked, which I have on my desk (along with this one). So, no, yours was sillier.

Ok, your turn to spout some more nonsense in-between quotes from earlier in the conversation. Careful to avoid the substance of the actual dispute at hand though.

If we leave without a deal, then everything will be up for grabs. We will have no chips to bargain with. To stop the UK haemorrhaging jobs and money, we'll be desperate to accept anything that is offered. The NHS will simply not survive.

You might call this project fear, but I don't see how no-deal could turn out much different. Leave campaigners predicted long queues of countries competing for trade deals with the UK the day after the referendum, but nothing of the sort ever happened. The reality will be much worse. This is from Ian Dunt's 2016 book:

>Ahead of talks, the UK prime minister and the US president hold a joint press conference. Theresa May says it shows countries are still keen to trade with the UK, while her American counterpart confirms the US commitment to the special relationship. Then the doors of the negotiating room close and the two leaders are replaced by grim-faced trade experts.
>
>Britain had a chronic shortage of negotiators during the EU talks and the situation has not improved. The ones facing the American team are those who are not required to fight the fires at the WTO. Many are civil servants who have had to read up on trade in the years since Brexit. They face highly specialised trade experts who have been doing this their entire careers.
>
>The public rhetoric disappears. It is replaced by hard-headed demands. US trade officials inform their British counterparts of the reality of the situation. The UK is in a position of unique and historic vulnerability. Investor confidence has dissolved. Its economy is facing its most significant shock since the Second World War. It has no time. It has no negotiating capacity. But Washington wants to help. It is prepared to rush a trade deal through Congress. It could take less than two years. But for this to be achievable, the UK needs to accept all of its demands. The Americans slide a piece of paper across the desk. The British team read the demands: they are horrendous. Consumer protections are reduced across the board, along with environmental regulations and safeguards for the NHS.
>
>UK civil servants have little option but to capitulate. The only way to protect what remains of the British economy is to sell off British sovereignty. The control wrestled from Brussels is now sold off to the highest bidder, behind closed doors, in a conference room in Washington.

Yeah, Harold Berman's Law and Revolution is one of the titans: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Formation-Western-Legal-Tradition/dp/0674517768

I've read chunks of the Berman book and it's great. Lots of medieval history too.

I also have a copy of this one: http://www.amazon.com/History-Common-Law-Anglo-American-Institutions/dp/0735562903/

The problem with that book is that it's a 6 pound brick so it's a chore just holding the damn thing. (BTW, you'll notice it's expensive, but if you have access to a university library, you can probably get it through interlibrary loan. I paid $50 for a used copy.)

I know of two books which deals with this directly.

1. Mizan by Javed Ghamidi. This deals with each aspect of Sharia and it's philosophy behind it and it's boundaries.
   
   
2. An Introduction to Islamic Law - Wael Hallaq