A post of Pac-Man's got me thinking about the difference of opinion in the law of the land. His opinion was the exact opposite of something I took for granted. I'm not saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong, this is not an attack on Pac-Man for he is entitled to his opinion as much as the next person.

An argument I presented was that your very presence in a country is a sign of acceptance that you agree to the laws of that country. Pac-Man disagrees (I think) by offering a statement along the lines of: I didn't sign anything.

By entering a country have we signed a contract stating that we will obey the laws of that country whether we agree with them or not? Should this process be formalised? Every time I enter a country should I have to sign a paper stating that I, as an individual, will obey the laws they have in place as long as they are in coalition with Human Rights? Would this be a benefit to upholding order in countries by holding people to their word?

We kinda do sign up to obey another country's laws when we apply for a visa - which may be given, or revoked, at the host country's whim. Those places that don't require visas and passports - like, say, France and Germany, or the US and Canada - got that way because the diplomats worked up treaties to guarantee that crossing citizens would not be molested, would obey the laws, etc. So in a sense, by "signing up" for America's laws as an American citizen, I'm also "signing up" whenever the American government makes arrangements with other countries to govern my visaless behavior.

But honestly, even without visas, you're right, Abomination. The State has rights both over its citizens (wherever they are) and all people within its borders (whoever they are). Occasionally the two clash - a citizen gets in trouble in a foreign land, and the home country tries to bail him out - bur most of the time, nations defer to the host countries. It's not as if the US is raiding Mexican prisons to liberate Americans convicted in Mexican courts. (Then again, the US did give Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba, a rare example of a home country trumping a host country.)

Indeed Visa's are an example of signing a contact. But what if you're staying for a holiday or even just passing through? All you're asked is your destination or intention. Now if you lie there is nothing saying that in that country you can be punished for lying to a representative of the state/country that you have signed or agreed to uphold.

I'm going to Bangkok in 3 days, I haven't had to sign anything stating that I'll agree to their laws and I won't have to either because I'm staying there for under 30 days. The fact that I'm staying there for under 30 days does limit the amount of crime I could do but it doesn't stop me or prevent me let alone state that I have done something that I said I wouldn't do. Should tourists have to sign some form of agreement stating that they will obey the laws of that country?

I think if you're a citizen of a country, you are obliged. If you're a tourist operating with a temporary visa or visiting the other country for a temporary work term, then some concessions can be made. I certainly wouldn't want to be pressed into mandatory military service if I were to visit russia :) .

A citizen, on the other hand, should be required. If you enjoy a society's benefits, you obey the rules. If a person doesn't think the laws apply to them, then they can drop out of the state's public schools, ignore state health care, and not bother to call state funded police or fire department services. A person "signs a contract" as soon as they decide to grow up and accept responsibility as a member of society, and they're expected to behave a certain way that allows them to live with the other people in their cultural area. Here in Canada, we don't allow people to pick and choose which laws they would like to follow; if you think a law is unjust, there are methods you can take to enact a change if you can gather enough support. It's happened before, and it'll happen again, and this is the reason we have a democracy.

That being said, what Pac-man was talking about (age of consent laws; sexual relations between consenting minors) illustrates the difference between laws and norms. There are dozens of very minor legal infractions that occur each day that a society tolerates because it conforms to the norms of that society. Things like teenage alcohol/marijuana and to a lesser extent, sexual activity are technically illegal, but many people adopt a "kids will be kids" policy, because teenage years are seen as a period of experimentation. Sure, you'll be punished in some manner, but you won't be busted for possession if you're caught with a few grams of marijuana. Minor infractions can be tolerated because:

A) Some level of deviation is perfectly acceptable within a legal system.

B) That legal system's resources are more approprately allocated to dealing with major lawbreakers.

So to sum it all up, you do agree to follow the laws of the land. However, you have a greater responsibility to follow the laws of your culture, which will be similar to the institutionalized laws but may differ in some slight regards.

No offence to anyone, but the "I haven't signed anything, so I don't have to obey the law" reasoning is inherently flawed if it serves to back a claim that criminal laws should only apply to those who like it.

"I haven't signed anything, so I'm free" applies only to contractual obligations and not much else.

When a country makes laws and demands the citizens to obey them, the country doesn't call upon any contractual obligation.

Citizens are given voting rights and they elect a legislative body which creates laws. The law says that whoever does this and that will have to face these and those consequences. The obligation is not one of civil (private) law like a contract one, but of public law.

Varying between legal systems, sometimes there's even no obligation but a simple "exchange rate": you do this to us, we do that to you. Other systems stress that there is an obligation of a citizen to obey the law.

Obligations in a more traditional sense follow from people's rights. In abstracto, if someone has a right to something, everyone else is under obligation to respect his right. In concreto, this obligation crystalises between parties when someone's right is violated by another person. From a strict point of view, no third person is entitled anyhow - just the victim. However, the state represents the society, and the society gathers all people. Therefore, the society is obligated to act in the interest of the people and this is done via the state's means of enforcement.

This, of course, means that the state is obligated to respect the society's customs and traditions, and each individual's rights as well, so the state's legislative authority can't (in theory) impose laws that bring harm to a group of people for the benefit of another group without a strong justification. This is not always true, as you can see if you consider what corporate dictate has been doing to laws.

There's no universal moral obligation to obey the laws as they are just because they have been passed. Some people believe there's such an obligation, some don't.

Therefore, if you disagree with some law basing on your conscience and your feeling of justice, you're not morally obligated to obey it, but there is a purely legal obligation in place and the state can and will force you to comply.

Also, when literal application of a legal rule would contradict the very purpose of law, or the society's ideals or even the court's healthy sense of justice, courts are allowed to stray a bit from the strict literal meaning and consider the greater logic behind the rule. Varying between countries, courts are allowed to disregard laws that violate consitutional rights of an individual, or to seek recourse from constitutional courts or the highest ranking court of the country.