Talk:International Court of Justice
|
|
| Contents |
Copyright issues
deleted copyrighted text, which was copied from http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html
please ask for permission before copying material from someone else's website, and if they give permission please include a notice to that effect in the article, so we don't delete it thinking you don't have permission
- There are certain criteria that can make copying of content more likely to be considered fair use, e.g. if the information is factual in nature (as opposed to highly creative), etc. Probably a lot of icj-cij's content could fall in that category, including the list of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ. See the checklist (http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.pdf). 24.54.208.177 00:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I replaced the blank entry with information from the address given on the main page, which is in the public domain (like the rest of the entries at the U.S. Dept State site, unless they're explicitly listed as being under copyright). --KQ
US withdrawal from the ICJ
If the USA withdrew from the Court in 1986, why were they involved in the Le Grand case in 1999? --rmhermen
- Also currently on the docket (in October 03) are Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) and Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), which seem to have been argued, hence the USA seems to be participating.
Slobodan Milosevic
If only states are participants, what about the Slobodan Milosevic war crimes trial?
- He is not before that court. As simple as that. --JensMueller 14:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Milosevic is before the ICC, rather, a precursor of the ICC, and not under the ICJ. This is one of the reasons I put the differentiation paragraph at the top of ICC, ICJ and War Crime Law (Belgium) -Vina 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
CrucifiedChrist's edit
I find that the version of this article after edit by CrucifiedChrist was in substantial contradiction with the old one, which was nearly entirely copied from the US State State department site. I would like to get some additional information about which one is better.
The old version copied from the US site was "While jurisdiction of the Court is based on the consent of the parties, any judgments reached are binding." CrucifiedChrist changed this to "Jurisdiction of the court is limited only to cases where both parties have submitted their dispute to the court. Should either party choose not to comply with the decision of the court, the Security Council may be called upon to decide if any further action is required." The latter seems unlikely to me, given that there are five veto powers in the UN Security Council which like this could render all judgements they consider inconvenient senseless.
- Here is the actual text from the charter - If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give to the judgment.
- I actually find some of CrucifiedChrist's version clearer than the US State Department version. For exacmple, the security council issue is what I understood, and was wondering about the wording in the article. However, like GBWR, I have not found another circumstance in which the party decided against "withdrew its acceptance". Not that Nicaragua has any real recource, even under the charter, because the US has veto power on the sec council. -Vina 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
CrucifiedChrist's version also said "All states maintain the right to exempt themselves from rulings of the ICJ, and particular states that have availed themselves of this right include Argentina, China, France, Israel, Russia, and the United States." Could we cite the examples? The only mentioned case is Nicaragua against the US, and given this one I find unlikely that the official US site would choose the wording which sheds a less favourable light on the US: "The U.S. accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's decision in a 1986 case involving activities in Nicaragua." Get-back-world-respect 23:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Instead of doing a wholesale revert of my edits, and justifying that revert by claiming we should quote verbatum some other website, could you please just edit the parts you disagree with? I tweaked the article in multiple places, and your revert wasn't helpful in understanding what exactly you thought should be phrased differently. Additionally, when you revert, if someone else later mades changes to the article, it makes it harder for me to merge my edits back in. Thanks! --CrucifiedChrist
- Sorry, that was a mistake caused by editing the wrong version. Now I have changed just the part that I am questioning. If you have reason to believe that the ICJ's own description of the bindingness of advisory decisions is wrong, you need to justify this claim. --Zero 03:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks! I wasn't trying to say that the ICJ's description was wrong, I was trying to clarify what they were saying. As I understand, in no case whatsoever is an advisory opinion binding upon the parties being judged. Additionally, in general, the advisory opinion is not binding upon the requesting parties, unless those parties agree ahead of time to be bound by the agreement. They way the ICJ phrased it, the distinction between the requesting parties and the judged parties was hard to pick out. Am I making any sense? --CrucifiedChrist
- The wording I used was stolen from the ICJ site and we shouldn't change it unless we are sure we know what we are doing. Your first change from "not binding as such on the requesting bodies" to "binding on the parties being judged" is doubtful because advisory opinions do not need to be judging any parties. They can be just answering some question of law, perhaps in the abstract. The second change you made, from "shall be binding" to "shall be binding upon the parties requesting the opinion" is also doubtful. The only thing I can find that this sentence may refer to is a provision of the CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS (see Section 30 in Article VIII in this document (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicotherdocuments.html)). It allows for some ICJ advisory opinions to be binding on the UN and a member state, but only the UN can request the opinion (member states are not allowed to request advisory opinions). So your change is doubtful there too. Unless we can find an authoritative account of this matter, I suggest we leave the ICJ's wording alone. --Zero 07:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I think we should differentiate between theory and practice. ICJ's wording says that its decisions are binding (what organization thinks that its own decisions are just hot air, anyways?) But in practice, people can ignore the decisions and what can other nations do? I mean, what exactly DID Nicaragua do after the US told the ICJ that it decided not to agree to the arbitration? -Vina 16:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Further research, the following is from Article 36 of the UN charter, which (apparently) the US invoked after disagreeing with the Nicaragua decision:
2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
But since the US has veto power on the sec council, 36(2) basically died. and the decisions were never executed. -Vina 17:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Typical time elapsed in resolving a dispute
I heard somewhere that the ICJ takes several years to hear and decide a case. Is that true? That would be a weak point, as far as making the court relevant to pressing issues is concerned, wouldn't it? Rad Racer 06:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That is correct, but you might want to have a look at the "LaGrand-case" [1] (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/igus/igusframe.htm), where "The Court finds, for the first time in its history, that orders indicating provisional measures are legally binding". You do however have a point, but this is also politics, and the ICJ is not your avarage court. But do you think this should be reflected in the article somehow? --Cybbe 18:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)