DICK, Exactly what question did I not answer ??
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:26 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > Thank you, jgg1000a, > > You are exactly right. That is what I asked and when Mark refused to > answer I assumed that he could not and still make his point so he ignored > it. That seems to be a very common practice among the lefties. Either > ignore or try to change the subject or both. > > > jgg1000a wrote: > > Mark reread the thread.... Dick asked you if effect does the Us have > the right to "try" a foreign leader and then issue an arrest > warrant... To this question you did an Obama and refused to answer > directly... And that is the core topic of this thread... In one > post, in making a point, you added a false fact that > > > > the first to openly ignore the UN > > > which you altered after the fact to in effect > > > > the first to openly ignore a ICJ judgment > > > Now I show even that anti-American dig is plainly false what do you > do??? You claim if effect any comment about your false your dig is > NOT part of this thread, so any disabusing of your "off-topic" > statement is now out of bounds... Egads man, do you have no > shame??? If the "the US was first to do it" was off topic, why did > you YOU TYPE IT? If however it was part of a valid reply that was on > topic, then questioning your claimed facts IS ON TOPIC... > > You are seeking to have your insult and deny my claim of you claiming > false facts all at the same time... Was you insult on topic??? If > yes, admit your claim was false, if not apologize for being off > topic... Very simple really. After all, we are here for honest, > open and civil debate here are we not??? > > On Apr 10, 3:30 pm, Mark <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > again gaar, you sidestep the original issue. > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican<[email protected]> > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > ouch!!! > > > On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Further examples as I twist the knife into your false claim's back... > Openly ignoring ICJ judgements is relatively common starting from > 1951.... > > > Non-Compliance with the International Court of Justice > > > Andrew Srulevitch > Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations > July 8, 2004 > > > Tomorrow the International Court of Justice will issue its non-binding > advisory opinion on Israel’s Security Fence. How might Israel react > to an adverse decision? Detonate a nuclear device? Attack the > enemy? Send 350,000 civilians into the disputed territory? > > > So responded France, Iceland and Morocco, respectively, to ICJ > decisions against them. Ignoring the ICJ ruling would not be original > either. The United States, Albania, Argentina, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, > Malaysia, Nigeria, Romania, South Africa and Thailand have all > followed that path. > > > If Israel does not accept the ICJ’s conclusions, Palestinians and > their supporters will argue that the Security Council should enact > sanctions against Israel, as it did against apartheid South Africa. > Lawyers for the Palestinians made this argument explicitly in their > oral presentation to the court: > > > This is a classic case in the light of the opinion issued by the Court > in the Namibia case. As a result of the serious breaches of > international law by the State of Israel, other states are obliged to > co-operate with one another and with the United Nations and other > competent international organizations, in order to put a stop to these > violations; not to recognize the unlawful situations arising from > these violations; not to assist in the maintenance of these > situations. If Israel persists in its refusal to apply the above- > mentioned rules of international law and does not accept the > consequences of its responsibility, the General Assembly is entitled > to expect the Security Council to take the necessary coercive measures > which, in the case of violations of mandatory legal rules, should not > be amenable to the use of a veto by any member of the Council. > > > Their argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Just as the general > comparison between Israel and South Africa is specious, so is the > specific linkage of the Namibia and Security Fence cases. > > > The history of the ICJ not only contradicts the Palestinian argument, > it leads to the opposite conclusion: states have not been subject to > Security Council sanctions for non-compliance. The ICJ’s judges have > issued decisions in various formats: in contentious cases between two > states, as advisory opinions for other UN agencies, and as an > arbitration panel. Though the circumstances of each case differ from > Israel’s and from one another, all of the states cited above adopted > policies of non-compliance with an ICJ ruling. > > > Four cases – France, Iceland, Morocco and South Africa – are described > below. The first three cases have important similarities to the > Security Fence issue, while the South African case has important > differences. The other cases of non-compliance are noted briefly to > provide additional context. > > > * * * > > > Defying ICJ rulings on national security issues: France and Iceland > > > On May 9, 1973, New Zealand (and Australia in a parallel case) asked > the ICJ to order France to end atmospheric nuclear testing in the > South Pacific. France responded that it did not consider the ICJ > competent to hear the cases, did not accept ICJ jurisdiction, and > would not participate in any proceedings. On June 22, the ICJ issued > an Order, which stated that there was a prima facie basis for > jurisdiction and, as an interim measure, “the French Government should > avoid nuclear tests causing the deposit of radio-active fall-out on > New Zealand Territory.” > > > France then conducted five atmospheric tests in July and August > 1973. In a June 10, 1974 note to the New Zealand Foreign Ministry,the > > > French government wrote: “France, at the point which has been > > > reached in the execution of its programme of defence by nuclear means, > will be in a position to move to the stage of underground firings as > soon as the test series planned for this summer is completed.” France > then conducted seven atmospheric tests from June to September 1974. > Both in 1973 and 1974, New Zealand reported to the ICJ that > radioactive fall-out had been detected in their territory. Subsequent > French tests were conducted underground, and therefore did not violate > the Order of 22 June 1973. > > > On an important national security issue – its nuclear weapons program > – France was unapologetic about defying an ICJ decision. > > > The case of Iceland has a more mundane subject – cod fish. Since > fishing accounted for over 70% of its exports, cod was national > security issue for Iceland. In July 1972, Iceland unilaterally > extended its area of exclusive fishing rights from 12 miles to 50 > miles, prompting complaints to the ICJ from the United Kingdom and > Germany. Iceland responded that it did not accept its jurisdiction > and would not participate in the hearings. In August 1972, the ICJ > issued an interim Order of protective measures. The UK continued to > send fishing boats into the zone claimed by Iceland. The Icelandic > Coast Guard attacked the boats and cut their trawling lines. > > > In July 1974 the ICJ ruled that Iceland’s unilateral extension of its > exclusive fishing area was invalid and that the UK had fishing rights > outside the 12-mile limit. Iceland still refused to comply. There > were additional clashes between the Icelandic Coast Guard and British > frigates that had been dispatched to protect their fishing fleet. In > 1975, Iceland claimed an even larger exclusionary area, out to 200 > miles and clashes continued. Shots were fired and ships rammed each > other, though no fatalities resulted. The dispute ended in 1976 with > an agreement that granted Iceland almost all of its demands. > > > Iceland – a liberal democracy and advocate of international law – > deemed the threat to its economic national security so serious that > the ICJ decisions were simply ignored. > > > Neither France nor Iceland was the target of international sanctions > for their clear defiance of the ICJ. > > > * * * > > > Defying the ICJ in territorial disputes: Morocco and South Africa > > > On December 13, 1974, the General Assembly asked the ICJ for an > advisory opinion on the legal status of Western Sahara, the former > Spanish colony known as Spanish Sahara, and the legal ties of Morocco > and Mauritania to the area. Both countries had made claims to Western > Sahara in the context of decolonization by Spain, while the indigenous > Saharawi population wanted an independent state. On October 16, 1975, > the ICJ returned its advisory opinion that both countries had some > legal ties to Western Sahara, but they were not sufficient to claim > sovereignty and the status of Western Sahara should be determined by > “the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine > expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.” > > > King Hassan II of Morocco responded to the ICJ opinion with the Green > March. Three hundred and fifty thousand Moroccan civilians were sent > towards Western Sahara with the intent on settling there and doubling > the population. > > > Morocco then defied a series of Security Council resolutions. On > October 22, the Security Council passed resolution 377, requesting the > Secretary-General to start consultations and appealing to all parties > to exercise restraint. On October 31 the Moroccan military crossed the > border. After receiving the Secretary-General’s report on November 2, > the Security Council passed resolution 379, again urging an end to > “unilateral actions” that would “escalate tensions.” On November 5, > King Hassan II ordered the 350,000 civilians to cross the border. On > November 6 the Security Council passed resolution 380, which “deplore > [d] the holding of the march; [and] call[ed] upon Morocco immediately > to withdraw from the Territory of Western Sahara all the participants > in the march.” > > > In 1976 Morocco annexed the area under its administration and then > annexed the rest in 1979 when Mauritania withdrew its claim to the > southern region. Twenty-five years later neither annexation has been > recognized nor have Morocco and the Saharawi reached an agreement. > > > Though construction began six years after the ICJ opinion, it should > be noted that Morocco built a thousand-mile security barrier through > the middle of Western Sahara to protect against Saharawi attacks. The > “berm,” as it is known, is a three-meter high earthen rampart, > fortified with an estimated one to two million landmines. It divides > the Moroccan-controlled northwestern two-thirds of Western Sahara – > rich in oil and minerals, whose coast contains the territory’s fertile > land and fishing industry – from the southeastern third that is mostly > desert and controlled by the Saharawi. > > > Despite disregarding both the ICJ opinion on Western Sahara and the > related Security Council resolutions, Morocco has not suffered serious > > > ... > > read more » > > > > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
