Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Per my very recent post I have a different view on this.     I think ALAC and 
GAC represent , in varying ways,  the interests of individuals and groups who 
may not have the knowledge
or resources to object themselves.  

I also think, and this is more an opinion, that we would tend to see very few 
objections from ALAC or GAC.

RT



On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 
> 
> On 8 September 2010 15:14, Frank March <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Milton:
>  
> sovereignity in a word.  I am conveying my interpretation of what the GAC 
> would be likely to respond with based on discussion held in previous GAC 
> meetings.  I do not seek to justify but to inform.
> 
> Frank, I am puzzled by this. I do not understand the logical link between 
> countries' assertion of sovereignty and their demand not to pay to do this.
> 
> Countries pay for their own border maintenance, diplomatic staff, armies and 
> every other means used to implement their assertions of sovereignty. What is 
> the justification for being excused from bearing the cost of asserting such 
> rights in this instance?
> 
> For some reason I'm struck by a vision of a country attempting to try a case 
> in the Hague and then appealing for Legal Aid.
> 
> Someone please help me understand this point of view, beyond a universal 
> instinct to get others to pay for one's own expenses if one can get away with 
> it.
> 
> - Evan
>