A minor note of contention, Gaddafi wasn't a dictator let alone even the leader of Libya when he died. He hadn't held formal office since early in the 70's shortly after the bloodless coup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_of_Libya

The cult of personality that sprung up around Gaddafi was largely because he was idolized among many Libyans due to the prosperity and progress he helped facilitate, though he did play into this image as 'folk' hero' and used it to his advantage to promote Libya quite well.

Some important context to keep in mind is that prior to the Green Revolution, Libya was a monarchy and Libyans were used to having a prominent central governing figure, a king, before the peaceful coup in '69. So it was only natural that the public would depict Gaddafi in a similar way.

Little different than the US equivalent of George Washington.

Gaddafi was so loved for the reforms he created that many Libyans honored his contribution by calling him the 'brother leader'. It was a fitting informal title because he was not the officially recognized leader but he was highly revered among Libyans.

Ultimately, Gaddafi was merely a statesman and adviser to the system of direct democracy known as 'Jamahiriya' that he helped create, and it is a tragic irony that he was doomed in some ways by the very adoration of his fellow Libyans.

Gaddafi and the Libyan government had even been slated to receive a reward from the UN just prior to the bombing of Libya for their economic and social progress and for their commitment to human rights. (See the following link)

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

On 01-07-2011, over 1 million peaceful Libyans came out to support the Libyan Government and to protest the NATO bombing of Libya:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeAIQSQp58A

The following link is probably the most comprehensive account documenting the Islamic fundamentalist nature of the Libyan rebels I have seen on the web and the efforts by the US and it's European and Saudi allies to subvert and undermine the Libyan Jamahiriya.

Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3504

Another great reference is a book called 'Destroying Libya and World Order'. Written by Francis Anthony Boyle, professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, who also served as legal council to Libya and filed lawsuits on Libya's behalf against the US with the World Court (he won both trials against the US); It details the Reagan and Bush administration's violent provocation of Libya during the 80's, all the way up until the 2011 US/NATO backed destabilization.

http://www.amazon.com/Destroying-Libya-World-Order-Three-Decade/dp/0985335378

(cont.)

The book Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade U.S. Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution is an excellent book written by Francis Anthony Boyle, professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, who also served as legal council to Libya and filed lawsuits on Libya's behalf against the US with the World Court (he won both trials against the US).

The following is an excellent and far better account than I can relate from the Amazon page:

>After the Bush Senior administration came to power, in late 1991 they opportunistically accused Libya of somehow being behind the 1988 bombing of the Pan American jet over Lockerbie, Scotland. I advised Libya on this matter from the very outset. Indeed, prior thereto I had predicted to Libya that they were going to be used by the United States government as a convenient scapegoat over Lockerbie for geopolitical reasons. Publicly sensationalizing these allegations,in early 1992 President Bush Senior then mobilized the U.S. Sixth Fleet off the coast of Libya on hostile aerial and naval maneuvers in preparation for yet another military attack exactly as the Reagan administration had done repeatedly throughout the 1980s. I convinced Colonel Qaddafi to let us sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague over the Lockerbie bombing allegations; to convene an emergency meeting of the World Court; and to request the Court to issue the international equivalent of temporary restraining orders against the United States and the United Kingdom that they not attack Libya again as they had done before. After we had filed these two World Court lawsuits, President Bush Senior ordered the Sixth Fleet to stand down. There was no military conflict between the United States and Libya. There was no war. No one died. A tribute to international law, the World Court, and their capacity for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Pursuant to our World Court lawsuits, in February of 1998 the International Court of Justice rendered two Judgments against the United States and the United Kingdom that were overwhelmingly in favor of Libya on the technical jurisdictional and procedural elements involved in these two cases. It was obvious from reading these Judgments that at the end of the day Libya was going to win its World Court lawsuits against the United States and the United Kingdom over the substance of their Lockerbie bombing allegations. These drastically unfavorable World Court Judgments convinced the United States and the United Kingdom to offer a compromise proposal to Libya whereby the two Libyan nationals accused by the U.S. and the U.K. of perpetrating the Lockerbie bombing would be tried before a Scottish Court sitting in The Hague, the seat of the World Court. Justice was never done. This book tells the inside story of why not.

This book unfortunately is not a light read, but it is not very long which makes it easier to digest. As a warning, the first chapter is filled with highly technical legal jargon that goes into describing and critiquing the shortsighted and selfish Hobbesian nature of US foreign policy and international law. It's well written and great background info, but it is incredibly dry and can be bewildering for those who aren't familiar with lawyerese. Past that point the book is much easier to follow as it is a chronological progression of events with numerous sources listing names, places, and dates that paint a very clear and detailed picture of the provocation and destabilization of Libya.

You haven’t proved it ain’t. It just depends on what perspective you look at it from. I’m offering a different perspective which is equally correct. There are 44 countries in Europe according to NATO. Up to 51 with some other counts yet the EU only has 28 members.

The conditions for joining the EU are strict and Elitist. You can argue that this may be a good thing which is totally valid, the EU has every reason to expect a country to meet very very specific conditions. Similarly you may argue it has good reasons for being as protectionist as it is but what you can’t do is deny it is these things, the EU defines itself as such.

I don’t particularly care either way about the EU there are arguments on both sides. However I do appreciate consistency and with that let’s just acknowledge that the whole concept of the EU is at the very least elitist if not racist.

Where I find your argument short sighted is you don’t acknowledge the trajectory or concept of federalisation that the EU is on. Key figures have made no secret, writing manifestos that the only way to save Europe is to become like the USA. Therefore the whole argument turns around if you start thinking of the EU AS a nation itself with states. It pretty much fulfils most criterias that satisfy the definition of being a nation. Indeed you highlighted most of them including a single currency. Which has done a huge amount of damage which Yanis Varoufakis is pretty eloquent on. If you’re not familiar with this aspect of the EU I recommend you look into it a bit. I think you might get into it. Also you should read the Maastricht treaty and Lisbon treaty to better understand the Union. They’re all available online.

> I don't think there's a "right to enrich", you just do it, but under the non-proliferation treaty, you do kind of have to justify that the enriching you're doing is for non-weapon purposes

Please don't express legal opinions that are silly. First of all, the NPT is not a source of rights. Second, yuo don't have to "justify" anything inclding enrichment, and third, Iran not only allowed all the inspections it was required to allow, it went repeatedly well beyond them and furthermore even suspended enrichment as a good faith gesture for several years.
In fact, the NPT obligates the nuclear-armed coutries like the US to share nuclear technology with other signatories such as Iran, "to the fullest extent possible" and "without discrimination".

May I suggest reading up a bit first at least before expressing opinions on legal arms control matters
https://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Nuclear-Non-Proliferation-Treaty-Daniel/dp/0199227357

And then

https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0190635711

> Never mind that the Brexiters never had a plan

I hear this all the time, but what sort of thing were you expecting from the Brexiteers?

An extended discussion paper perhaps? Well there's the "Blueprint for Britain", published by the IEA after a competition.

https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Brexit%20Entry%20170_final_bio_web.pdf

Is that too short and not enough detail? Prefer something from a think tank? Well how about the Flexcit plan, a 400-page document going into detail about trade requirements?

www.eureferendum.com/Flexcit.aspx

Would you rather have something by a politician, ideally a Leave Campaigner? Well Dan Hannan, one of the Vote Leave board, wrote a detailed case for what a post-Brexit Britain should look like in his latest book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Vote-Leave-Daniel-Hannan/dp/1784977101

Of course, these are just plans written by campaigners and not a formal one by an elected government. That obviously couldn't happen under the previous pro-Remain administration, but is being done right now under direction by Theresa May. I genuinely don't know what else they should have had.

That is awesome. I am so glad people took the time to read it. There is so much more to what is going on in Russia then what 'Putin is tyrant' headlines lead people to believe. When I hear those stereotypes along with claims of Russian imperialism, I feel a somewhat obligation to shine a little light on the subject. It is absolutely fascinating to see how this state develops after being forced to undergo such radical transitions and form a new government practically overnight. But like I told the previous individual, please take everything I say with skepticism, I am a Poli Sci undergrad, so I am no expert. Everything from this comes from reading two books this and this. And having a very Russian enthusiastic professor (he even found his wife over there). This is of course a major over simplification, getting into the details of these changes and systems would require writing more than one book and a greater mind on the subject than my own.

Actually the IAEA report you linked to very much does say that, as doe every IAEA report on Iran, beca use that's the applicable legal syandard.


>IR degrees

If you want to swing degrees, I can assure you that mine are very much bigger, thicker and hairier than yours. IR degree are fine for what they are but they hardly qualify you as qualified in intl law or arms Control treaty interpretation See, maybe if you had a law degree with some specializatiom, as I do, then you could opine.

Yes the IAEA report says it can't verify the "exclusively peaceful" nature of Iran nuclear program. If you had taken the right classes in your 2 IR courses you'd know that the same statement could be made about not just Iran but any number of other countries on the planet including Brazil, Argentina, Egypt etc simple because the IAEA does not and cannot verify that for any country unless a separate treaty called the Additional Protocol is in force. In the case if Japan, where it is in force, it took 20 years before the IAEA verified the exclusively peceful nature of their nuclear prorm.

So before you fart off with your uninformed opinions again, STFu, read, learn, then opine:



>The same words could be used by the IAEA Director General if he were producing a report on another state that has declined to bring an additional protocol into force, e.g. Israel, Egypt or Brazil. The phrase cannot, and should not, be taken to imply that the IAEA has (or has not) specific grounds to suspect the presence of undeclared material, or the existence of undeclared activities.
http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran_IAEA_and_Nuclear_Myth_Making.htm


Note the author is the UK ambassador to the IAEA.

Educate yourself: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0190635711/

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.

> The WTO (which isn't exactly the most powerful organization) would be powerless to do anything about it.

The WTO is the single most powerful organization on earth. Along with the Bretton Woods system, it is the entire foundation of the post-war global economy. Please read up on trade law and familiarize yourself on the current state of international affairs. This is a good start.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/European-Union-Politics-Michelle-Cini/dp/0199694753/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375543558&sr=1-1&keywords=European+Union+Politics

This is a very good read which brings up pretty much all of your points.

I have read this book on his trial. He was indeed interesting and a superb general. There is some evidence he was resented by others in the Japanese Army high command and sidelined after Singapore, before being given the impossible task of defending the Philippines.

A major problem with the Japanese high command was it was composed largely of leaders, like Tojo, with very limited overseas experience. This is how the Japanese so often believed they could beat the USA because 'the Americans are soft and love luxury', it was just wishful thinking based on ignorance a warmongering. Men like Yamashita and the Navy's Yamamoto spoke annoying truths based on actual experience.

Massacres and atrocities were committed during the invasion of Malaya that were ultimately his responsibility (even if there is no evidence he ordered them). But events in Manila were beyond his control, committed by troops not answerable to him and not in his chain of command.

Understanding the European Union: A Concise Introduction by John McCormick.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-European-Union-Introduction-Paperback/dp/0230298834

Will be very happy if this is found.

The best would probably be the China Law Deskbook by James Zimmerman.

For patent law, go with Patent Litigation in China.

For commercial and business law, go with Chinese Commercial Law.

The high seas? Are you one of those deviants that are into sea law?


If so...I've got just the thing for you: [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: and Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI] (https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-Convention-Implementation-International/dp/1795567104/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sea+law&qid=1550764444&s=gateway&sr=8-1)

All the answers you seek are here, happy reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Reaching-Judgment-Nuremberg-Untold-Criminals/dp/0465068391

This is a wonderful book.

International Law Stories seems to highlight the major cases that are covered in most survey public international law courses... https://www.amazon.com/International-Law-Stories-John-Noyes/dp/1599410869

As for copyright, you can get the IP Q&A book to see how well you grasp it

I've noticed a lot of people asking this, and the OP hasn't replied. I've also noticed different photos of the same page circulating the internet (sometimes in very unexpected fashions), so it has got to be from something out there

​

So, after a little bit of sleuthing, I'm 90% certain it's from this book - you can even see in the table of contents that "figure three" is titled "don't take no for an answer"

​

You can also find a rather comprehensive list of EU-related referendums here

There's a variety of different ranks that Amazon utilizes. The biggest (and most important) is your overall rank, which is dependent on the number of books you sell -- in this category, you're going up against everyone on Amazon. In the other category ranks, you're up against an ever-smaller number of people.

For example, look at this book: http://www.amazon.com/Striking-First-Preemption-International-ebook/dp/B004UGKKIC/ref=zg_bs_157851011_21

It's all the way down there in OVERALL rank: #244,546 Paid in Kindle Store

But it's rank is much higher in smaller categories:

21 > Nonfiction > Professional & Technical > Law > Specialties > Military

21 > Nonfiction > Law > Specialties > Military

75 > Nonfiction > Professional & Technical > Law > International Law

It's a bigger fish, smaller pond situation.

Yes problem because Wikipedia is in general not an authoritative source, and there really is no "varying opinion" on what constitutes a breach of the NPT. The matter is spelled out in minute detail in a legal document called the Safeguards Agreement, previously provided. Note that Acton says what "could" be true, but isn't. Even the Australian fella's claims are not based on the law but on his opinion of what "practical terms" supposedly mean.

The simple fact is that there is no diversion of nuclear material in Iran to non-peaceful uses according to the inspectors, thus Iran has not violated the NPT. Now, instead of relying on wikipedia, I suggest reading one of those things that has paper and covers...called a BOOK.


Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by Daniel Joyner
http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Nuclear-Non-Proliferation-Treaty-Daniel/dp/0199227357/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1333117053&sr=8-2

On a personal level, I believe reading [To Kill a Mockingbird] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Kill_a_Mockingbird) in sixth grade inspired me to follow the just practice of the law...

Professionally, Aust's Handbook of International Law has been an excellent resource for my study of International Law.

Ummm... like I said, an actual university law professor who specializes in nonproliferation law and has written books like "Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" Oxford University Press; 1 edition (July 21, 2011) http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Nuclear-Non-Proliferation-Treaty-Daniel/dp/0199227357

You can believe whomever you want but like I said, the IAEA report itself does not say Iran had a nuclear weapons program; you're just taking some reporter's version

Highly suggest reading this book if you want a great breakdown of the disputes and underlying political tension.

https://www.amazon.ca/Owns-Arctic-Understanding-NorthUnderstanding-International/dp/1553654994

Do you mean melt ponds?. That does complicate things but apparently with enough spectral bands it is possible to distinguish them: Melt ponds on Arctic sea ice determined from MODIS satellite data using an artificial neural network.

If you are willing to drop $104 there is an entire book about the topic:
Detection of Melt Ponds on Arctic Sea Ice with Optical Satellite Data.

Edit: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Vote-Leave-Daniel-Hannan/dp/1784977101?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-ffab-uk-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1784977101

Conservative MEP.

Hannan has always wanted a swiss model based on bilateral accords. He wrote an entire book outlining his position.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Vote-Leave-Daniel-Hannan/dp/1784977101

https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/141210110634-BritainandtheEUasolution.pdf

Verhofstadt is a euro extremist - in a sense that in 2012 he published European Manifesto where he is calling for abandoning nation states parliaments and replace these with the European Parliament, bring more immigrants from Arabic countries, etc.
https://www.amazon.com/Europe-Guy-Verhofstadt/dp/1479261882/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485788228&sr=1-6&keywords=verhofstadt
“Europe must once and for all get rid of the navel gazing of its nation-states. A radical revolution is needed. A large European revolution. And a European federal Union must emerge. A Union that enables Europe to participate in the postnational world of tomorrow.

Can't really be arsed arguing with someone who deliberately mischaracterises the other side (although I'm not even a brexiteer) so i'll just link articles and books you should read. This, This and this.

Fundamentally the EU has repeatedly resisted attempts at reform and mostly governs in an attempt to preserve itself rather than improve the lives of its citizens and the global poor. Frankly its sad that this is Europe's attempts at a common market because it is badly structured, badly run and resistant to reform. My hope is that Britain leaving finally kicks some sense into those running it but frankly its unlikely.