Thread: "World Court" vs. Texas

What kind of jurisdiction is there when either party can withdraw?

It is compulsory jurisdiction, that the US signed on to in 1946 under Truman and his Declaration. The US under Reagan in 1984 attempted to withdraw from the ICJ ruling by modifying the Declaration, but failed. The 1946 Declaration was held to be a binding international agreement, and the US "assumed an inescapable obligation toward other states accepting the Optional Clause, by stating formally and solemnly that any such change should take effect only after six months have elapsed."

"Litigation Implications of the U.S. Withdrawal from the Nicaragua Case"
Keith Highet The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Oct., 1985) p 1002. The optional clause is here:

The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

a. the interpretation of a treaty;

b. any question of international law;

c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

3. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states, or for a certain time.

Statute of the Court | International Court of Justice

The Reagan administration's modifications to the Truman Declaration only applied to Central American states, however as it was not done within the time frame mandated by the court, and having never received congressional approval anyway, it was rejected.

The US accepts de facto the jurisdiction of the court, but could modify the issues wherein the court has jurisdiction, it did so illegally in the Nicaragua case, and did not do so at all in the Mexico case. But as I said it has no enforcement mechanism like the UN Security Council, or any other supranational organization.

The international system is anarchic, and unless other states are willing to enforce ICJ rulings with the use of force; states can and have and probably will ignore rulings of the ICJ. That still puts those states in contrivance of international law, and sets dangerous precedents for other states to follow. The ICJ has jurisdiction, recognized by the US, but enforcement of that jurisdiction at the international level is not always guaranteed. That fact should not take anything away from the ICJ as an institution though since on the balance its rulings have been followed more often than not.

Fine! It's either a criminal act which Mexico dissociate itself or an it is Act of War. Choose.

That is sort of a false dichotomy; not everything is solved by the point of a gun. The reason for the existence of the ICJ is to rectify state disputes without resorting to violence. It does become a criminal act if the ICJ ruling is ignored through which Mexico and other like-minded states could exert other pressures on the US to modify its state behavior, but not one Mexico need disassociate itself with as the ruling becomes case law and also is instructive in future conflicts with the US.

And have you read the American refusal to accept that judgment?

1) The American acted on behalf of an ally - El Salvador. If the judgment is correct, then NATO is illegal - feck that.

NATO is established by treaty law, military aid to El Salvador in the 1980s was not part of any treaty I am aware of. The closest justification would be the authorization of the conscription of US nationals living in El Salvador if that country were attacked by a third party state per the friendship treaty of 1932.

"Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Consular Rights Between the United States and El Salvador" The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, No. 2, Supplement: Official Documents (Apr., 1931), pp. 97-110

But El Salvador was not directly attacked by Nicaragua and US nationals being conscripted is not the same as military aid; of course there were probably many CIA agents who happened to live in the country at that time, and were 'conscripted" by El Salvador.

2) The Sandinista has refused to accept the ICJ judgment when it went against her, ie border dispute. One or the other but not both. If the Sandinista wants to accept the ICJ judgment against the Americans, then she will have to surrender her borders. She refuses. PERIOD!

So that justifies US refusal in its ICJ cases? Comparing the US to the Sandinista regime doesn't help the US case at all. I already stated that Iran refused to comply with the judgment against her, and now you are confirming that the Sandinista regime refused to comply with a ruling as well.

That puts the US in the company of Iran, and the Sandinistas when it comes to ignoring ICJ rulings. That's not the kind of company I like to keep as an American; we are better than that, and although I disagree with the Court's verdict it is essential that we follow it.

The international system is anarchic, and unless other states are willing to enforce ICJ rulings with the use of force; states can and have and probably will ignore rulings of the ICJ.

So then the ICJ would order us to attack ourselves?

Or maybe Mexico should send their army to enforce the ruling with force.

Originally Posted by troung

So then the ICJ would order us to attack ourselves?

Or maybe Mexico should send their army to enforce the ruling with force.

The point being that such action should be unnecessary. Is the US a nation of laws, or an outlaw nation?

The point being that such action should be unnecessary. Is the US a nation of laws, or an outlaw nation?

And we are following our own laws. The Supreme Court said the WC has no authority in this case.

**** Mexico and the "world court".

Originally Posted by troung

And we are following our own laws. The Supreme Court said the WC has no authority in this case.

**** Mexico and the "world court".

We have already signed and ratified treaties and declarations to the effect of recognizing the ICJ and its jurisdiction. It is sad that the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, but their decision was based more on federalism than any broad rejection of the ICJ. It seems superfluous that Texas would annoy the largest trading partner of the US, invite outrage amongst its many Mexican and Mexican-American residents, and international condemnation at violating international law all to prove a point. But then again this is Texas we are talking about.

Your own comments don't bring much illumination to the topic at hand, nor do you offer an explanation as to how to deal with Mexican-American relations in the aftermath of this coming execution. It would be better to comply with the ICJ then not.

It is sad that the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, but their decision was based more on federalism than any broad rejection of the ICJ. It seems superfluous that Texas would annoy the largest trading partner of the US, invite outrage amongst its many Mexican and Mexican-American residents, and international condemnation at violating international law all to prove a point. But then again this is Texas we are talking about.

SC rejected the appeal and Texas has a duty to protect it citizens. The only people who have a right to be outraged are Americans watching a foreign government and court attempting to protect a double rapist/murder from justice. The outrage should be that this piece of **** crossed our border and took two young lives. The outrage should be that Mexico is attempting to protect him. The outrage should be that his defenders are ignoring the two teenagers he RAPED and MURDERED and was found guilty in a fair trial of doing such.

If Mexicans are annoyed/outraged, good then don't come here and rape and murder teenage girls or better yet don't come here period.

Your own comments don't bring much illumination to the topic at hand, nor do you offer an explanation as to how to deal with Mexican-American relations in the aftermath of this coming execution. It would be better to comply with the ICJ then not.

An illegal alien gang member from Mexico raped and murdered two American teenagers, Mexico wants to save him and Mexico has the nerve to be annoyed/outraged at us?

**** the ICJ and Mexico.


Justices Rebuff Bush and World Court - washingtonpost.com

The justices held 6 to 3 that judgments of the International Court of Justice, as the court is formally known, are not binding on U.S. courts and that Bush's 2005 executive order that courts in Texas comply anyway does not change that.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

It seems superfluous that Texas would annoy the largest trading partner of the US

How would executing an illegal Mexican invader anger the Canadians?

Originally Posted by Herodotus

invite outrage amongst its many Mexican and Mexican-American residents

How many of those are here legally? I can bet you dollars to donuts that LEGAL immigrants are outraged about the illegal immigrant criminal elemants coming over here to threaten our lives.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

and international condemnation at violating international law all to prove a point. But then again this is Texas we are talking about.

Sometimes it's difficult to hold on to your principles. I'm glad Texas has the will power not to cave in.

How would executing an illegal Mexican invader anger the Canadians?

Perhaps they would be next, Canada also doesn't have the death penalty. If the third largest trading partner to the US, and its citizens can be treated so brusquely wouldn't the Canadians feel put off by Texas's actions?

How many of those are here legally? I can bet you dollars to donuts that LEGAL immigrants are outraged about the illegal immigrant criminal elemants coming over here to threaten our lives.

Well I qualified my statement by saying Mexican and Mexican-American, but does it even matter? Do we Americans not extend the rule of law to illegal immigrants? If so, then why cannot we extend them rights due to them under treaties?

Sometimes it's difficult to hold on to your principles. I'm glad Texas has the will power not to cave in.

I said nothing about principles, Texas just wants to prove a point.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Perhaps they would be next, Canada also doesn't have the death penalty. If the third largest trading partner to the US, and its citizens can be treated so brusquely wouldn't the Canadians feel put off by Texas's actions?

If a Canadian citizen were tried and convicted of murder, then sentenced to death in Texas, I would support Texas's right to execute him.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Well I qualified my statement by saying Mexican and Mexican-American, but does it even matter? Do we Americans not extend the rule of law to illegal immigrants? If so, then why cannot we extend them rights due to them under treaties?

He was tried and convicted in a court of law, just like any other American would. Why shouldn't he be executed?

If a Canadian citizen were tried and convicted of murder, then sentenced to death in Texas, I would support Texas's right to execute him.

But if that Canadian citizen was not allowed access to his consulate as Vienna proscribes, why wouldn't Canada have some objections to said conviction.

He was tried and convicted in a court of law, just like any other American would. Why shouldn't he be executed?

He wasn't allowed access to his consulate as the treaty demands. If an American is caught smuggling drugs in China/Thailand/Malaysia/Singapore, and is tried and convicted and sentenced to death, but that citizen was not allowed any American consul to visit him/talk to him, would you object to his execution?

I think a few Hollywood movies were made based on this premise-Midnight Express with Turkey (though he wasn't convicted to death), one in Thailand with girls (can't remember the name) and one in Malaysia, (also can't remember the name). Perhaps you think they deserve death and they probably do, but not without observing the proper protocols for protecting nationals in foreign countries.

The SC, the highest court in the nation, ruled 6-3 in favor of Texas that the ICJ is not binding. This issue is settled.

exican and Mexican-American, but does it even matter? Do we Americans not extend the rule of law to illegal immigrants?

The SOB got a fair trial, issue settled.

ird largest trading partner to the US, and its citizens can be treated so brusquely wouldn't the Canadians feel put off by Texas's actions?

Who gives a shit? The state has a duty to its citizens, not Mexico.