That case and that book

[dumbledore11214]

> Goddlefrood:
> 
> International Conventions are, quite simply, superior to ANY 
> signatory country's local law. That's what I mean by being 
> bound to higher things. I'm not trying to denigrate the US 
> system in any way, simply telling it like it is. If it were 
> argued otherwise then the US would be a rogue state, and it 
> isn't. 
> 
><SNIP>


Alla:

That is very true of course, but that reminds me that I have a 
question about it, please bear with me - International law was again 
one class in law school and then almost no exposure except newspapers.

How effective do you think in general the mechanism of enforcement of 
whatever International court of copyright (I am not even sure if such 
court exists, whatever is the name of the body that decides 
international appeals in that area) decides, had the parties choose 
to take the case there.

Do you know what I am getting at? Yes of course countries who signed 
the convention in whatever area of law HAD BETTER be sure that their 
law is in accordance ( that is why I guess conventions are often 
vague and general to give enough room for country specific law to be 
in compliance and still country specific enough), but say JKR or RDR 
decides to take their case there and they win there. Who will be 
enforcing it? Say RDR is forbidden from publishing by US court and 
International court will say no, go ahead. What mechanism do they 
have to enforce it?

I remember reading the case about woman being either unlawfully fired 
in Ukraine or something similar ( do not remember what it was even) 
and she decides to appeal to European court of human rights and I was 
sadly shaking my head and thinking - okay, so they will say she will 
be reinstated or something, what next?

Employer in Ukraine will choose to honor this decision? No way in my 
opinion, it will be - whatever, just piece of paper IMO.

Thanks :)

Alla