Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
In answer to your first question, they might well reason that losing revenue (and keeping oil in the ground, in circumstances where its price was likely to go up) was preferable to conceding to a foreign court which appears to have no legitimate claim under customary international law as it is generally understood. And I suspect there would be a lot of other governments (including those of oil producing countries) who might support them over this. The whole concept of trying to take foreign governments to court is a huge can of worms, and an awful lot of political leaders have a significant stake in maintaining the status quo.
<snip>
|
Might have worked a few years back... Now... cut off the oil to us... effect is cost of oil goes up... now guess what happens next?
Answer:
U.S. domestic oil production becomes cost effective again. Fracking and Slate oil production sites go back on line as they were a couple years ago. Even off-shore rigs go back in demand and on-line. Result...Not a tear to be shed for those foreign oil producing countries.
Incidentally: Customary international law is applied in peaceful disputes. "If" it was determined and "proved" that the Saudi government itself was complicit in the 9/11 attack, then the question becomes one of what to do about an "act of war"? Reparations might look cheap to the Saudis in that light.