Some source documents... Please note compulsory here is and always has been OPTIONAL... And states may end that feature at their whim... Like your defining sex as not sex...
Nowhere in this discussion have you stated or implied that relative FEW countries covered... Or that feature which allows states to end the compulsory feature... Facts are hard things... And you misuse them http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4076208/ >>> When the President Truman signed the U.S. declaration accepting the World >>> Court's optional compulsory jurisdiction on August 1, 1946, this country >>> expected that other states would soon act similarly. The essential >>> underpinning of the UN system, of which the World Court is a part, is the >>> principle of universality. Unfortunately, few other states have followed >>> our example. Fewer than one-third of the world's states have accepted the >>> Court's compulsory jurisdiction, and the Soviet Union and its allies have >>> never been among them. Nor, in our judgment, has Nicaragua. Of the five >>> permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United States and >>> the United Kingdom have submitted to the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. Our experience with compulsory jurisdiction has been deeply disappointing. We have never been able to use our acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction to bring other states before the Court but have ourselves been used three times. In 1946 we accepted the risks of our submitting to the Court's compulsory jurisdiction because we believed that the respect owed to the Court by other states and the Court's own appreciation of the need to adhere scrupulously to its proper judicial role would prevent the Court's process from being abused for political ends. Those assumptions have now been proved wrong. As a result, the President has concluded that continuation of our acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction would be contrary to our commitment to the principle of the equal application of the law and would endanger our vital national interests. On Apr 10, 5:35 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Truman signed it. August 26, 1946 > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > > > The answwer is that the main question was never answered at all. When did > > the US ever sign onto the ICJ? If we never signed on then why should we be > > subject to what it claims. It is like the last part of the Geneva > > Convention. We never signed it. Congress never approved it. Why then > > should we be held to it. The earlier parts, yes, we signed them. Same with > > the ICJ. We never signed it. Congress never approved it. Why should we > > ever care what they claim. And the reasons for not signing it I mentioned > > before. Until those questions are answered fully and completely and those > > points taken into consideration, then we should just tell them to STFU. > > > Mark wrote: > > > We covered this before.......... sorry you can't respond on point. > > > When Dick was asked exactly which question I did not answer in full he did > > not address it at all, so I assume that to be an admission that i did answer > > it. > > > Now you post a reverse order time line that PROVES my point and do not > > address the fact that it does so. > > > Now you are off on yet another tangent. It is fine to use multiple types of > > examples to make a point on topic. It is NOT kosher to grab at one of the > > lesser supportive examples and try to change the base subject of the debate > > to THAT example which on its own will not stand up. > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>> You then started on ENTITIES, not people > > >> No I said your claimed facts were false, which had to do with first > >> open rejection of a ICJ or UN Judgment.... Again had you limited > >> your claim to "the ICJ judged against Reagan and the US in 1986" it > >> would have been factual... Instead you included attack-dog verbage > >> which included false claims... > > >> That you are unable to admit or understand this simple point is > >> telling... > > >> On Apr 10, 4:26 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Response one: > > >> > Someone has to. > > >> > TWO: > > >> > They have the right to reach internationally on affairs they think > >> > affect or affected their interests in any way. > > >> > Gee, the US does just that as well. > > >> > THREE: > > >> > Should they ??? No. He has not made a single overt or covert move > >> > outside his borders that did not include an invitation of another (the > >> > affected) sitting sovereign government. That would be the US method > >> > and why the Spanish feel they have a right to act. > >> > FOUR: > > >> > If I'm not mistaken the US does not consider six men (Che had resigned > >> from > > >> > ALL Cuban service) talking politics and basicallly starving in the > >> outback > >> > to be a reasonable threat... in this case there is no point to be made > >> by > >> > you. As far as some of the other excursions made by Cuba during their > >> > "foreign travels", those soldiers were on loan to the Soviet bloc.... Is > >> the > > >> > US responsible for UN actions ?? > > >> > And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference does it > >> make... > >> > the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, the US > >> under > >> > Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the ICJ > >> jurisdiction > > >> > AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) verdict > >> > was rendered for war crimes............ > > >> > How soon the right points fingers forgetting they paved the way. > > >> > I see NO waffling in any of my very direct answers to direct and ON > >> TOPIC > >> > (unlike yours) questions. > > >> > And up until and including that reply we were discussing heads of state > >> and > >> > he mistakenly threw Che into the mix... I reminded him Che was not part > >> of > >> > the Cuban Gov. when in Bolivia etc. > > >> > You then started on ENTITIES, not people pulling a Gaar and trying your > >> best > >> > to make it suit some imagined topic that was simply NOT being discussed > >> > regardless of your interpretation. > > >> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> 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]> wrote: > >> > > > again gaar, you sidestep the original issue. > > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican > >> > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> > > > > ouch!!! > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <[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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
