U.S., ICJ & ICC and any compulsory requirements?

[Husky23]

This is the general rundown I’ve located for World Court –

1. 1935, Senate rejects World Court Treaty
2. Senate ratifies World Court Treaty during the Truman administration. I don’t have a lot of detailed info on this though.
3. 1985, Reagan terminates consent to the World Court. And it seems Contra thing in Nicaragua plays a role in US backlash. Although, apparently the World Court was a US idea, we didn’t like the way things were shaping up anyhow.

The ICC –

1. 2000, Clinton signs Rome Statue, but does not send to the Senate for Ratification.
2. 2001, Bush nullifies Clintons signature on the Rome Staute.

Now, a few questions:

1. What, if any, obligations does the US have regarding the World Court (ICJ)?

2. Can anyone give me a reference, indicating if any treaty overrides, or in some manner morphs to the point of usurping, contradicting, and/or becomes incompatible with applicable constitutional requirements of the Constitution's supremacy clause (Article VI, clause 2) – that it now becomes Unconstitutional and must be rejected?

3. Can an argument be made that the he ICC is completely illegitimate, even under the UN’s own charter? That the UN charter gives neither the UN General Assembly nor any other UN agency lawmaking authority. In other words, there cannot be UN ‘laws’ and there is no valid law authorizing the establishment of the ICC.

4. Lastly, Clarification on terminating of treaties – any help? I’ve seen an argument that it was unconstitutional for Reagan to terminate the US’s obligatory status per the World Court Treaty, so in essence the US is still bound by that treaty and required to accept its decisions.

Per:

www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

The Constitution, and the Senate seems to agree, there is quite abit of vagueness on termination of treaties, but, at least the Senate recognizes that termination appears to fall to the Executive branch.

[LorSpi]

Which is what established the ICC.

I posted something earlier today at THC. The Court in The Hague requires both parties to accept its authority. So - if the US refuses to recognize that it has jurisdiction over an issue, it has no authority. It takes two to Tango. The fact that it ruled in a case where all the parties involved did not recognize its authority would have it violating its own mandate.

Under the Constitution, any treaty signed by the US becomes law in the US. So it would be subject to all the checks and balances. So part one - lawyers go over those treaties with a fine tooth comb, making sure that it does have any inherent "unconstitutional" elements, as well for any potential problems. Part two - it can be tossed just as any us law. It is a law - not a Constitutional amendment.

The Treaty of Rome has a fundamental flaw - according to its articles, members of the Treaty can opt out of any article. OKay. But no country which has not signed it can opt out. In other words, all of its articles apply only to those countries which have not ratified it. This is just flat out wrong. It binds nations who have not agreed to it - and not those which have.

Countries opt out of treaties all the time. In fact, most treaties have clauses that specify the details about pulling out. There can be a minimal enforcement period - parties must agree to accept the treaty obligations for at least two years, for example. Or Parties must give a one year notice before withdrawing from the terms of the treaty. Peru has signed and withdrawn then resigned more damn treaties - I was getting annoyed trying to figure out what was going on and what applied. Also - I just got through doing close reading of several nuclear nonproliferation treaties with Russia (or USSR). In Russian. All of them carried specifics about when the treaty came into force and details about changing any part as well as withdrawal from the treaty.

So long as the US abides by any requirements, notifications or whatever (one of my favorite legal terms) that is detailed in a treaty, it can do what it damn well wants.

What did I forget?

[Husky23]

Alright good start…

OK, so your pretty up to speed on the ICC, cool.

Now regarding this comment you made: “So - if the US refuses to recognize that it has jurisdiction over an issue, it has no authority. It takes two to Tango. The fact that it ruled in a case where all the parties involved did not recognize its authority would have it violating its own mandate".


www.americanfreepress.net/NWO/World_Court_Wants/world_court_wants.html

Granted, I have not read the Rome Statute, but the article above alludes to if the ICC get 60 nations on the planet to ratify the Statute then that’s their green light to have jurisdiction over the entire globe, signatories and non-signatories alike. Dunno, maybe a bunch of hot air – but if true it would put a needle in your ‘two to tango’ premise. And frankly I’m not all too hip on that idea.

I’m digging that part about tossing treaties just like law. Are the mechanics principally the same? Because it seems, although I don’t have the full details, that in 1985 Reagan took it upon himself to discard the Senate 2/3rd voted upon ratification of the World Court during the Truman administration. Is something amiss here? But, I am still unable to find specific details for process of nullifying a treaty. Again, even at the senate.gov web page it was mentioned the Constitution is quite ambiguous regarding this.

Now, the usurping/contradicting the Constitution thingie. So I can fall back on the Constitution's supremacy clause (Article VI, clause 2)? Also, I would imagine a boat load of constitutional lawyers comb treaties for what you mentioned. So why is it Lor, I get this uneasy feeling that our nations leaders are unconstitutionally handing away our sovereignty? How can the UN have “World Heritage sites” on our sovereign land that we cannot touch? How is it that a President can sign treaty that violates Constitutional supremacy? And if done so, even ratified by the Senate, and it is found to violate the Constitutional supremacy article – then what?

What did you forget?

1. What, if any, obligations does the US have regarding the World Court (ICJ) at this very time? I’m under the impression – nodda, zip, zero, goose egg.

2. Can an argument be made that the he ICC is completely illegitimate, even under the UN’s own charter? That the UN charter gives neither the UN General Assembly nor any other UN agency lawmaking authority. In other words, there cannot be UN ‘laws’ and there is no valid law authorizing the establishment of the ICC.

OK, other than that we hip counselor

[LorSpi]

husky23 said:

Alright good start…

OK, so your pretty up to speed on the ICC, cool.

Now regarding this comment you made: “So - if the US refuses to recognize that it has jurisdiction over an issue, it has no authority. It takes two to Tango. The fact that it ruled in a case where all the parties involved did not recognize its authority would have it violating its own mandate".


www.americanfreepress.net/NWO/World_Court_Wants/world_court_wants.html

Granted, I have not read the Rome Statute, but the article above alludes to if the ICC get 60 nations on the planet to ratify the Statute then that’s their green light to have jurisdiction over the entire globe, signatories and non-signatories alike. Dunno, maybe a bunch of hot air – but if true it would put a needle in your ‘two to tango’ premise. And frankly I’m not all too hip on that idea.

I’m digging that part about tossing treaties just like law. Are the mechanics principally the same? Because it seems, although I don’t have the full details, that in 1985 Reagan took it upon himself to discard the Senate 2/3rd voted upon ratification of the World Court during the Truman administration. Is something amiss here? But, I am still unable to find specific details for process of nullifying a treaty. Again, even at the senate.gov web page it was mentioned the Constitution is quite ambiguous regarding this.

Now, the usurping/contradicting the Constitution thingie. So I can fall back on the Constitution's supremacy clause (Article VI, clause 2)? Also, I would imagine a boat load of constitutional lawyers comb treaties for what you mentioned. So why is it Lor, I get this uneasy feeling that our nations leaders are unconstitutionally handing away our sovereignty? How can the UN have “World Heritage sites” on our sovereign land that we cannot touch? How is it that a President can sign treaty that violates Constitutional supremacy? And if done so, even ratified by the Senate, and it is found to violate the Constitutional supremacy article – then what?

What did you forget?

1. What, if any, obligations does the US have regarding the World Court (ICJ) at this very time? I’m under the impression – nodda, zip, zero, goose egg.

2. Can an argument be made that the he ICC is completely illegitimate, even under the UN’s own charter? That the UN charter gives neither the UN General Assembly nor any other UN agency lawmaking authority. In other words, there cannot be UN ‘laws’ and there is no valid law authorizing the establishment of the ICC.

OK, other than that we hip counselor

I wasn't very clear in my initial reply - I meant The Hague as the World Court - and that requires all Parties recognize its authority. My bad.

World Heritage sites - I would put that on the back burner. Remember the Taliban and those Standing Buddhas? Did you see the UN doing anything there? I mean - did you see the UN doing anything about anything? The World Heritage designation and $5 will get you a grande latte at Starbucks.

As to the ICC. Yes - it has set itself up as an uber entity, with no statute of limitations, no recognition of any country's laws, and no oversight.

It is the Black helicopters, Trilateral Commsion and grassy knoll all rolled up in one. A real nightmare - legally speaking of course. There are judges from Argentina and China on the court - so there is no standard as to who is appointed - just politics as usual per UN.

As to treaties - how about this? www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treaties.htm The treaty on treaties. Which states

SECTION 4. PROCEDURE

Article 65
Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty

1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it, withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons therefor.

2. If, after the expiry of a period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than three months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the notification may carry out in the manner provided in article 67 the measure which it has proposed.

3. If, however, objection has been raised by any other party, the parties shall seek a solution through the means indicated in article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

4. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall affect the rights or obligations of the parties under any provisions in force binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes.

5. Without prejudice to article 45, the fact that a State has not previously made the notification prescribed in paragraph 1 shall not prevent it from making such notification in answer to another party claiming performance of the treaty or alleging its violation.

I agree with you about the ICJ - though the US can at any point agree to jurisdiction if it choses to do so.

The ICC is illegal under the UN's Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

As to the process under the Constitution for withdrawing from a treaty. Sometimes things are left vague for a reason. At the international level - they could care less, just ratify the damn thing however you do it. As in the case of Peru - new president - out with the treaty. It left the UN at one point. I considered asking about if a country left the UN, does that mean that all its treaties it ratified as a UN member became null and void or did it have to withdraw from each and every treaty. But then it was lunchtime and I got distracted.

So - unless the Supreme Court rules on that one - it stands. No one contested it. I suspect it might be the "choose your battle" syndrome. Best to keep things vague just in case one day you really need to get a decision and things look good for your side.

[Husky23]

Ya, I should have covered this earlier but a motorcycle race was on and I got distracted Lets’ clarify some basics…

World Court = ICJ = The Hague = yes? Just so we don’t start blurring the entities here. And it was designed to rule on disputes between nation states.

ICC is a totally different entity, an international court that reaches beyond, and into, sovereign nation state boundaries. I’m not a real conspiracy theorist, except maybe when the precise amount of alcohol is consumed, there’s a full moon, and the temperature and dew point spread are within a few degree’s. But, this court is totally unconstitutional per our present form and the notion of international court scooping up citizens can give me a cold chill.


Regarding the IJC, you mentioned:

“…and that requires all Parties recognize its authority.” And “I agree with you about the ICJ - though the US can at any point agree to jurisdiction if it chooses to do so.”

Presently the US does not recognize the World Court as an international ruling authority our nation must abide by (Reagan nullified that). And it seems ole socialist Bobbie implied correctly regarding the Nicaragua thing. The US didn’t like the World Courts ruling – so we took our marbles and went home.


Lor, can you expound upon: “The ICC is illegal under the UN's Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.” Is that covered in the Vienna convention? If so, then how can the UN play a role in either the World Court or the ICC? Dumb it down for this non-diplomatic speak boy. Or better yet, rephrase in aviator talk…ROFL

I agree with you, treaties, or portions there of, intentionally left vague. It allows “wiggle room” for the parties, especially if that intended portion cannot be specifically agreed upon, or agreed it should be left vague. Ever been a party to a military operational mission brief? Of course all briefs utilize the standard 5 paragraph OPORD format and it breaks the mission down to, at times very detailed instructions. But proceeding the brief is the “Commander’s Intent”, a simple short, sentence, or paragraph describing his/her vision for how the fight will unfold, including the end-state for the unit. Actually OPORD’s and FRAGO’s are developed from the “intent”. The point being, the commander’s intent is specifically not a micro managed statement.

[Husky23]

Hey Lor,

Did you see the post from History Minion? Posting the Canadian magazine article referencing “Independent Judge” is required to determine a detainee’s status and not the detaining power?

I’ve read damn near the entire articles and cannot find a reference for that – only time a judge is required is for violations requiring some type of sentencing.

Here it is:

boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=500002041&start=100&tstart=0

Do you know of any other GC reference I may be missing? Or some other Protocol or treaty the U.S. is bound by in regard to that? But the magazine referenced the GC as the source (but not the specific article or protocol of the GC).

OH, by the way – I like the way you’ve been twisting the hell out of oneifoverthecoocoosnest

[LorSpi]

Did you see this?

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Goodness!

I don't know about that independent judge, but from the reading I took it to mean that the capturing soldier should not act judge, jury and executioner. Not that a third party national is expected to be called.

As I read it, the US does not have to be a signatory to the treaty on the ICJ in order to agree to participate. And the US is a major participant in many programs to which it is not a signatory. Example - the Ottawa Convention on Humanitarian Demining. The US did not ratify this convention because of its troops in Korea but it is the single largest supporter - financial, military expertise, facilitator, you name it. I was the Demining Officer in Peru. The best international clearinghouse is operated out of James Madison University, run by a retired colonel and funded by the DOS maic.jmu.edu/ We are the good guys. So they don't have use of our marbles (not going there, I promise) but we could go a round with them if it suited our purposes.

The US objects to the Rome Statute because of its illegality. This isn't the first time there has been convoluted treaties. That doesn't mean anyone really cares. They don't. Countries sign treaties as their side of a back scratching exchange all the time without any intention of actually abiding by it. Russia signed the Kyoto Protocol because it was able to get all the credit for the USSR - the numbers were not divvied up between all the former members - Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia. It was flat out wrong, but Russia signed only because it gets to cheat. It will sell the credits and not have to worry about treaty compliance.

I mean - how can a country under sanctions by the UN be not only be seated as a member of the UN High Commission of Rights but chairman - Libya? It's called corruption.

It's called picking your battles. The US stands alone on most of these. But we don't have an option. We are bound by out laws. And those laws say that treaties are to be treated as out own laws. So - as you well know - the ICC is unconstitutional.

I worked on the Article 98 issue. Totally legal and by the book. And yet the Euros shit themselves trying to stop the process.