LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteIt has no more legal jurisdiction anywhere on the planet than I do, they just have a huge propaganda budget that they have used to sucker dimwits into believing them.Originally Posted by Herodotus
As I understand it, the US President agrees with the ICJ and the conflict is one of state laws vs international treaty obligations. I understand his line of reasoning of jeopardizing US citizens in other countries but I suppose this is all besides the point. The US Supreme Court ruled in favour of Texas so it's all wrapped up anyway.
Last edited by chankya; 18 Jul 08, at 02:31.
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides
It has no more legal jurisdiction anywhere on the planet than I do, they just have a huge propaganda budget that they have used to sucker dimwits into believing them.
Then why do states submit cases to it, and why do many states abide by its decisions? Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it isn't meaningful.
BTW it was a non binding decision.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
"States" don't actually submit cases, they are submitted by persons purporting to represent states. And their motivations could be almost anything, from personal profit, through misguided altrusim, to being one of those dimwits I mentioned earlier.
The very concept of an "International Court" with jurisdiction over national states is contrary to the very idea of sovereignty, and it is repugnant to the supreme law of the US. A nation-state that believes that the rights of its citizens are lower than the whimsical dictates of some distant foreign potentates has lost its legitimacy.
Nothing purported about it they are states that submit cases; the same states that ratified the UN Charter in 1945. A treaty is binding on a state unless it says so otherwise. Leadership of those states may and will change but the decisions are not bound to the leaders.
If a state has a territorial dispute like Cameroon and Nigeria did it can be resolved through this court. If that idea is repugnant to you well I suggest you take it up with the leadership of this country, or refine your notion of Westphalian nation-state sovereignty as bit by bit it is being eroded away.
What part of non-binding are you not understanding?
Chimo
He does this.
-dale
Who said the court was non-binding? Of course it's binding, it just isn't enforceable, example the US Supreme Court.
Frequently Asked Questions*|*International Court of Justice6. Are decisions of the Court binding?
Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that “each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”.
Judgments are final and without appeal. If either of the parties challenges their scope or meaning, it has the option to request an interpretation. In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment.
For one, Nicarargua!
Chimo
What, correct misconceptions on the Internet? Yeah, I'm a crusader). But seriously I haven't even stated if I agree with the opinion or not. I just thought people should know that this court does have jurisdiction, it is not really disputed, and its been around for 60+ years, so why is this even controversial.
Actually that case Nicaragua won 15-1, it wasn't close, and the decision was binding against the US.
Aha! You fell for that! No, that was not the case. It was in the 80s when the ICJ ruled agains Nicarargua and she refused to accept the rulings.
U.S. Withdrawal from Nicaragua v. US
Chimo
Did the courts in the US ignore the fact that the person on trial was a foreign citizen? And if they didn't, how on earth could they deny him access to his consulate inspite of the US being a party to the Vienna convention? Are the states in the US free to do as they like while disregarding the international agreements signed by their federal government?
Without enforcement, nothing is binding.
A mod can tell me to shut up, but without the power to actually ban me, it's not binding.
The US Supreme Court can say whatever it wants, if no one's there to enforce the will, it's not binding.
Saying it's binding means nothing.
UN is a joke because we are the only enforcer of its wills.
We are NOT a joke like the UN because we have the power to enforce our will.
The world is not fair. It never was. It never will be.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: