Senate moves to prevent return of Jewish archive to Iraq

[happyslug]

36. As I said before, that is all no longer LEGAL under International Law.

It was LEGAL before 1954, thus Germany's borders were changed in 1945. The Russians were permitted to take a lot of German property home to replace property the German Army had destroyed. but all of that is pre 1954. That is the date of the Convention, every country in the world has signed except as follows:

Algeria, Mauritania and Western Sahara in Northwest Africa,
Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Central Africa Republic in East Africa,
Mozambique, and Zambia is South East Africa,
Republic of Congo, Brazzaville and Namibia in South West Africa.
Nepal and Bhutan in the Himalayas

Four Counties have signed but NOT ratified the treaty:
UK, Philippines, Ireland, and Andorra.

I use "Republic of the Congo, Brazzaville" (pre 1960 French Congo) to differentiate it from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (once called Zaire, pre 1960 the Belgium Congo).

Thus bringing up Lakota is a weak argument. the use of Force to gain new lands was legal back then. It is NO longer legal under International Law and that is the law we have to operate under today.

I brought up Native America lands to show the difference between what countries can do to their own residents and the property of those residents, which includes taking all of their property, and what countries can do when it comes to property of residents of other countries in those other countries. International law does NOT address what a country can do internally to its resident's property, but when it comes to invading a country, International law since 1954 FORBIDS giving that property to anyone but the country that owned it.