+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 111

Thread: "World Court" vs. Texas

  1. #16
    chankya's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Feb 07
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    534
    Country: India
    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

  2. #17
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    28 Jan 07
    Posts
    1,268
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Herodotus View Post
    It has jurisdiction, it doesn't have enforcement mechanisms though.
    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.

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06 Apr 07
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by GraniteForge View Post
    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.

  4. #19
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    6,661
    Country: Kyrgyzstan
    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

  5. #20
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    28 Jan 07
    Posts
    1,268
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Herodotus View Post
    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.
    "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.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06 Apr 07
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by GraniteForge View Post
    "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.

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    What part of non-binding are you not understanding?
    Chimo

  8. #23
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    11,551
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    What part of non-binding are you not understanding?
    He does this.

    -dale

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06 Apr 07
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    What part of non-binding are you not understanding?
    Who said the court was non-binding? Of course it's binding, it just isn't enforceable, example the US Supreme Court.

    6. 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.
    Frequently Asked Questions*|*International Court of Justice

  10. #25
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Herodotus View Post
    Who said the court was non-binding?
    For one, Nicarargua!
    Chimo

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06 Apr 07
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem View Post
    He does this.

    -dale
    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.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06 Apr 07
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    For one, Nicarargua!
    Actually that case Nicaragua won 15-1, it wasn't close, and the decision was binding against the US.

  13. #28
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Herodotus View Post
    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

  14. #29
    Banned gamercube's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 06
    Location
    Barbados
    Posts
    228
    Country: United Nations
    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?

  15. #30
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Bush at odds with Texas over death penalty
    By ExNavyAmerican in forum International Economy
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11 Oct 07,, 04:34
  2. Covering Rita from the beginning
    By Leader in forum International Economy
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 25 Sep 05,, 07:35
  3. 14 feared dead in Texas blast....
    By MIKEMUN in forum International Economy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 26 Mar 05,, 17:31
  4. Battle for Control of Congress Plays Out in a Redrawn Texas
    By Gio in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18 Oct 04,, 13:16
  5. Texas Republicans Vote to Fine Fugitive Democrats
    By Stinger in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 19 Aug 03,, 12:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts