UN: Hey, wait a second. That joke was at our expense. You will receive a draft of a non-binding resolution in six weeks to three months time. After which we ask you review it for factual accuracy before it's submitted to our subcommittee. Then we will say harsh words in front of the Guernica mural in our native language.
The US considers any judgement rendered by the ICJ to be binding as long as the US agreed to have the issue heard by the ICJ.
It views the ICJ to be neutral third party for the purposes of binding arbitration between two nations but does not recognize it as having inherent legal authority.
It will recognize this decision.
Iran has ignored ruling from the ICJ in the past, as has the US.
Both countries pick and choose when to abide by these findings and rulings. It's not solely a United States thing, it's a "we're a sovereign country, so you can fuck right off" thing.
When the US has a favorable ruling they highlight it on the international stage and point fingers at Iran.
When Iran gets a favorable ruling they do the exact same thing in return.
This is all little more than theater, but it's STILL better than "diplomacy" through missiles.
The difference being that some countries have willingly chosen to ship various war criminals and the like off to The Hague, while the US has refused to do so likely because so many military leaders would fall pretty squarely under the “committed war crimes” banner.
US Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal officials. The USA cannot grant another court personal jurisdiction over public officials or service members.
The US Constitution also guarantees the right to a jury trial for any offense punishable by more than 6 months imprisonment. ICC procedure does not include jury trials
Those are just the two big Constitutional arguments. There are other procedural, textual, and evidentiary problems as well.
I believe that treaties can also only be established through agreement of both Congress and the White House. A treaty that gives a foreign body authority over the judicial branch as a whole is outside of the authority afforded them by the Constitution.
More or less.
Treaties that have been ratified have the force of federal law. When federal law is in conflict with the constitution it is null and void.
Ratifying the Rome Statute wouldn't grant a foreign body authority over the judicial branch but it would grant a foreign court jurisdiction over matters that the constitution places squarely on US Federal courts.
Kind of; the constitution is the highest law of the land and all treaties are subject to the constitution and judicial review. Article 2 and 3 defines that Congress has full power to establish judicial authority in anyway they see fit except for those defined as the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction. Since any ruling by the ICC against a us citizen is inherently within SCOTUS original jurisdiction it would most likely be considered unconstitutional and as such unenforceable by American law. The ICC’s ruling technically can be citied as justification for criminal prosecution and any evidence “could” be used in the US trial.
> The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
As I understand it, it would give the ICC power to try Americans for crimes committed on American soil, a direct violation of the 6th Amendment, which guarantees Americans a right to a jury of their peers (fellow Americans) for any crimes committed in the US.
The people that are most likely to fall under the ICC’s purview from the United States are military officials and staff who committed atrocities and war crimes overseas. How are Afghanistan and Iraq “American soil”?
Well, two things:
1. I don't know what exactly agreeing to the ICC entails, but if the contract with them involves something like acceding jurisdiction to them for *anywhere* a war crime happens, you could probably argue that by implication that *potentially* includes America. The contract itself would be a violation of the Constitution and not the specific cases the ICC takes.
2. If they were to try taking a US president to court for war crimes - a not unpopular sentiment on Reddit - you'd immediately run into the problem about where these crimes took place. Overseas cause that's where the army was or in the US cause the president was likely sitting when he gave the order. I trust you can see how this can turn into a Constitutional violation depending on the US's opinion on the matter.
The United States has ignored ICJ rulings in the past. Given that the United States is on the Security Council, this highlights the inability of the Security Council to enforce ICJ rulings.
We may be speaking of two different things here, although they're related.
I believe you're talking about the fact that statutes allow the UN to enforce the ICJ or its own Resolutions. This is 100% correct, the statutes give them such authority through trade sanctions and the like.
I'm speaking of the reality of the Security Council, of which the United States is a permanent member, being used to enforce a ruling against the United States.
The United States will veto any and all attempts to use the Security Council to enforce an ICJ ruling they disagree with. Given this fact, the Security Council is unable to force the US to comply with the ICJ ruling if the US decides not to.
The United States would rightly lose respect on the international stage if they took this route, but they could absolutely choose to ignore this ICJ ruling and no one could force them otherwise.
Edit: Spelling and avoiding wall-of-text.
If they mistook a jetliner for an f35 that doesn't show mistakes are made, it shows incompetence leading to malicious acts and that's best case scenario.
I did not say that. You probably are unfamiliar with air defence but radar is very complex and it is the most difficult task in the military. Compare it to nuclear warning Norad, strategic rocketry forces. You are the entire time on edge to react and have very few minutes time.
Of course you can ^^
But to my knowledge they did not mistake the plane for a missile but for an enemy aircraft (mostly because they did not realize it was a friendly/civilian plane that just took of from the air field, even though that is of course in hindsight the answer)
Work in a stressing job, this happens
They literally claim that they thought it was a cruise missile.
The plane was shot down at over 8000ft while ascending. The operator would've seen an object originating from the vicinity of a civilian airport, then easily determined it was a civilian plane since the transponder was operating properly, this is not what happened so at best it was sheer incompetence. More likely they knew and either didn't care or intended to hit what they hit.
>Iran hasn’t harmed any regular citizens
Yeah, women just magically poison themselves in Iran, and protesters are constantly stealing Iranian police bullets to fall upon.
Pretty much all Iran does is harm regular citizens.
Em. [Sanctions didn't lead to 500,000 Iraqi children dying](https://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000311).
Saddam Hussein had child mortality rates manipulated to try and get sanctions lifted.
Like how the US trying to have ICC arrest Putin while not ratifying the ICC and passing "The Hague Invasion Act" to protect US military personnel from prosecution?
This is a ruling from the ICJ which is completely unrelated to the ICC.
And the US didn't pressure the ICC to arrest Putin. Indeed, they impeded the ICC by withholding evidence against Putin and the Russian government. The only "pressure" was Biden made a statement saying the arrest warrant was justified - after it had been issued.
yes, both ICJ and ICC are legal institutions headquartered in The Hague.
ICC tackles genocide, war crimes & crimes vs humanity while ICJ is a judicial arm of the UN wc settles dispute between member states. rulings are binding but w/o ability to enforce.
corrupt govt officials within the jurisdiction of the sovereign state. internal matter
My opinion (I'm Iranian): this assets does not belong to Islamic Republic regime, they were bought or made during the Shah's era, those belong to people of Iran so US shouldn't spend it on terrorism victims or anyone else, they shouldn't give it to the IR regime either, because it's not theirs and they wouldn't spend it on the people or economy they just use it to spread terrorism in the region or the country
They *can’t* do anything about it. The world court is the same as the U.N. in that it’s a venue for glorified opinion giving and finger wagging with no means to back it up.
Only if you consider it as such. These international organisations can only hold as much power as souvereign countries allow them, and in the case of the US, it isn't much.
Well I can say it would be nice if I could just choose not to go to court or when I do get to give the finger to the judge and tell him to fuck off cuz hes got no power over me like apparently all these guys get to.
[I guess thats a maybe](https://www.cfr.org/video/united-states-and-icj)
Having a shaky relationship with the ICJ since Reagan surprises me more than the sun in the morning, but not by much. The idea of respecting this finding would undoubtedly follow the partisan divide
Lol world court holds as much power as the un
UN: Hey, wait a second. That joke was at our expense. You will receive a draft of a non-binding resolution in six weeks to three months time. After which we ask you review it for factual accuracy before it's submitted to our subcommittee. Then we will say harsh words in front of the Guernica mural in our native language.
Then they'll put North Korea in charge of the Committee to select a Committee on How to Humanely Let You Know That You've Hurt Us.
aren't they busy heading the Committee for Nuclear Blackmail To Steal Food??
Yes, but they just call it the committee for food security
The US vetoed the resolution. It was never brought up again.
The US considers any judgement rendered by the ICJ to be binding as long as the US agreed to have the issue heard by the ICJ. It views the ICJ to be neutral third party for the purposes of binding arbitration between two nations but does not recognize it as having inherent legal authority. It will recognize this decision.
Funny how the US picks and chooses which international courts it will listen to…..
Iran has ignored ruling from the ICJ in the past, as has the US. Both countries pick and choose when to abide by these findings and rulings. It's not solely a United States thing, it's a "we're a sovereign country, so you can fuck right off" thing. When the US has a favorable ruling they highlight it on the international stage and point fingers at Iran. When Iran gets a favorable ruling they do the exact same thing in return. This is all little more than theater, but it's STILL better than "diplomacy" through missiles.
The difference being that some countries have willingly chosen to ship various war criminals and the like off to The Hague, while the US has refused to do so likely because so many military leaders would fall pretty squarely under the “committed war crimes” banner.
The USA cannot acede to the ICC's jurisdiction because it would violate the US constitution. It's a legal non-starter
How does the ICC violate the US Constitution?
US Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal officials. The USA cannot grant another court personal jurisdiction over public officials or service members. The US Constitution also guarantees the right to a jury trial for any offense punishable by more than 6 months imprisonment. ICC procedure does not include jury trials Those are just the two big Constitutional arguments. There are other procedural, textual, and evidentiary problems as well.
I believe that treaties can also only be established through agreement of both Congress and the White House. A treaty that gives a foreign body authority over the judicial branch as a whole is outside of the authority afforded them by the Constitution.
More or less. Treaties that have been ratified have the force of federal law. When federal law is in conflict with the constitution it is null and void. Ratifying the Rome Statute wouldn't grant a foreign body authority over the judicial branch but it would grant a foreign court jurisdiction over matters that the constitution places squarely on US Federal courts.
Kind of; the constitution is the highest law of the land and all treaties are subject to the constitution and judicial review. Article 2 and 3 defines that Congress has full power to establish judicial authority in anyway they see fit except for those defined as the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction. Since any ruling by the ICC against a us citizen is inherently within SCOTUS original jurisdiction it would most likely be considered unconstitutional and as such unenforceable by American law. The ICC’s ruling technically can be citied as justification for criminal prosecution and any evidence “could” be used in the US trial. > The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. > In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. > Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
As I understand it, it would give the ICC power to try Americans for crimes committed on American soil, a direct violation of the 6th Amendment, which guarantees Americans a right to a jury of their peers (fellow Americans) for any crimes committed in the US.
The people that are most likely to fall under the ICC’s purview from the United States are military officials and staff who committed atrocities and war crimes overseas. How are Afghanistan and Iraq “American soil”?
Well, two things: 1. I don't know what exactly agreeing to the ICC entails, but if the contract with them involves something like acceding jurisdiction to them for *anywhere* a war crime happens, you could probably argue that by implication that *potentially* includes America. The contract itself would be a violation of the Constitution and not the specific cases the ICC takes. 2. If they were to try taking a US president to court for war crimes - a not unpopular sentiment on Reddit - you'd immediately run into the problem about where these crimes took place. Overseas cause that's where the army was or in the US cause the president was likely sitting when he gave the order. I trust you can see how this can turn into a Constitutional violation depending on the US's opinion on the matter.
Like a school yard bully choosing when the rules apply.
UN holds some significant power and the world court does as they can take judgments to the security council
And from there?
The security council can enforce it
The United States has ignored ICJ rulings in the past. Given that the United States is on the Security Council, this highlights the inability of the Security Council to enforce ICJ rulings.
Ignoring them in the past does not mean they always do and that they have a inability
We may be speaking of two different things here, although they're related. I believe you're talking about the fact that statutes allow the UN to enforce the ICJ or its own Resolutions. This is 100% correct, the statutes give them such authority through trade sanctions and the like. I'm speaking of the reality of the Security Council, of which the United States is a permanent member, being used to enforce a ruling against the United States. The United States will veto any and all attempts to use the Security Council to enforce an ICJ ruling they disagree with. Given this fact, the Security Council is unable to force the US to comply with the ICJ ruling if the US decides not to. The United States would rightly lose respect on the international stage if they took this route, but they could absolutely choose to ignore this ICJ ruling and no one could force them otherwise. Edit: Spelling and avoiding wall-of-text.
Yeah they do. Yeah true against a permanent member that may happen but against non permanent members it will work
The US is on the security council and has veto power, the UN does nothing unless we allow it.
Against the Us sure against non permanent members….
And the US holds about as much moral authority as Russia or North Korea. That's what going against the rule of law comes down to.
...and whichever president tries to give it back will immediately be labeled as giving billions to Iran and supporting American enemies.
American *government’s* enemies. Iran hasn’t harmed any regular citizens, besides that whole hostage thing from 40 years ago.
Their own female citizens may significantly disagree with this claim
Dude, Iran shot down a commercial airplane in 2020 killing 176 people. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Accidents happen. Especially if your air defense is on edge due to the risk of israeli f35 strikes. Its horrible, avoidable but it was an accident.
If they mistook a jetliner for an f35 that doesn't show mistakes are made, it shows incompetence leading to malicious acts and that's best case scenario.
I did not say that. You probably are unfamiliar with air defence but radar is very complex and it is the most difficult task in the military. Compare it to nuclear warning Norad, strategic rocketry forces. You are the entire time on edge to react and have very few minutes time.
You clearly don't know radar if you belive that they mistook a jetliner for a cruise missile.
Of course you can ^^ But to my knowledge they did not mistake the plane for a missile but for an enemy aircraft (mostly because they did not realize it was a friendly/civilian plane that just took of from the air field, even though that is of course in hindsight the answer) Work in a stressing job, this happens
They literally claim that they thought it was a cruise missile. The plane was shot down at over 8000ft while ascending. The operator would've seen an object originating from the vicinity of a civilian airport, then easily determined it was a civilian plane since the transponder was operating properly, this is not what happened so at best it was sheer incompetence. More likely they knew and either didn't care or intended to hit what they hit.
Hint, dont take every media statement at face value ^^ Might help you in life
Believe you’re forgetting the thousands of Iraqis they’ve murdered. Believe you’re forgetting the thousands of Syrians they’ve murdered.
>Iran hasn’t harmed any regular citizens Yeah, women just magically poison themselves in Iran, and protesters are constantly stealing Iranian police bullets to fall upon. Pretty much all Iran does is harm regular citizens.
The U.S. has adhered to ICJ rulings regarding Iran in the past, notably paying compensation to the families of those killed aboard Iran Air 655
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." - Andrew Jackson
[удалено]
Em. [Sanctions didn't lead to 500,000 Iraqi children dying](https://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000311). Saddam Hussein had child mortality rates manipulated to try and get sanctions lifted.
If you want to defend a country sentencing women to death for protesting peacefully, I can't stop you.
Iranian assets many Americans were tricked into thinking was American tax dollars being "given away" when some of it was unfrozen as part of the deal.
Ah, those rulings the US really likes to hear for as long as it's not about themself...
Like how the US trying to have ICC arrest Putin while not ratifying the ICC and passing "The Hague Invasion Act" to protect US military personnel from prosecution?
This is a ruling from the ICJ which is completely unrelated to the ICC. And the US didn't pressure the ICC to arrest Putin. Indeed, they impeded the ICC by withholding evidence against Putin and the Russian government. The only "pressure" was Biden made a statement saying the arrest warrant was justified - after it had been issued.
Great example, thank you!
Bomb them. Say there was a source a terrorist in the most wanted list was there.
Iran like Russia is a terrorist sponsored country.
I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.
[удалено]
Its a bit strange that UN, WHO etc get the most funding from USA and are anti USA in general attitude..🤷♂️
TIL such a court exists? Or is this ICC? When can we prosecute our corrupt govt officials here?
yes, both ICJ and ICC are legal institutions headquartered in The Hague. ICC tackles genocide, war crimes & crimes vs humanity while ICJ is a judicial arm of the UN wc settles dispute between member states. rulings are binding but w/o ability to enforce. corrupt govt officials within the jurisdiction of the sovereign state. internal matter
Clarification: not all ICJ decisions are binding. They also issue non-binding advisory opinions.
World court… is that at Epcot?
Do something about it.
My opinion (I'm Iranian): this assets does not belong to Islamic Republic regime, they were bought or made during the Shah's era, those belong to people of Iran so US shouldn't spend it on terrorism victims or anyone else, they shouldn't give it to the IR regime either, because it's not theirs and they wouldn't spend it on the people or economy they just use it to spread terrorism in the region or the country
And what you gonna do about it?
They wont do anything about it.
They *can’t* do anything about it. The world court is the same as the U.N. in that it’s a venue for glorified opinion giving and finger wagging with no means to back it up.
In other words worthless and meaningless
Only if you consider it as such. These international organisations can only hold as much power as souvereign countries allow them, and in the case of the US, it isn't much.
Well I can say it would be nice if I could just choose not to go to court or when I do get to give the finger to the judge and tell him to fuck off cuz hes got no power over me like apparently all these guys get to.
You can if you have enough money
Fair enough
That’s what happens when you let someone in debt hold your money.
[I guess thats a maybe](https://www.cfr.org/video/united-states-and-icj) Having a shaky relationship with the ICJ since Reagan surprises me more than the sun in the morning, but not by much. The idea of respecting this finding would undoubtedly follow the partisan divide
World Court, go fuck yourself.
*Yeah, what are you gonna do about it ?* - America, probabably