Mazel Tov! Netanyahu | 31 comments (31 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Signatories to Jurisdiction ICJ in The Hague (none / 0)

Quite interesting entry by year ...

ICJ -- Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory
The States parties to the Statute of the Court may "at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court" (Art. 36, para. 2, of the Statute).
Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other States, which have accepted the same obligation, before the Court, by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court. Conversely, it undertakes to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more other such States.
The declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory take the form of a unilateral act of the State concerned and are deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
On 4 July 2018, Palestine deposited in the Registry of the Court a declaration ...

The big three are lacking: China, Russia, United States 🙃

Quite amazing the demonstrations near the Carnegie Peace Palace which houses the Highest International Court in The Hague.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - July 2004

'Sapere aude'

by Oui (Oui) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2023 at 03:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Signatories to Jurisdiction ICJ in The Hague (none / 0)

US hasn't signed on to the domestic provisions of the Geneva Conventions either. Can't imagine why that would be.

by rifek on Mon Jan 2nd, 2023 at 06:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Signatories to Jurisdiction ICJ in The Hague (none / 0)

Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols
Despite being signatory to the Conventions, there are some notable and often-criticized U.S. cases involving conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by the Conventions, such as Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004). In Hamdi, a U.S. citizen was accused of being a member of the Taliban forces on U.S. soil as an "enemy combatant," and was detained by unilateral Executive decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the validity of his detention.

'Sapere aude'

by Oui (Oui) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2023 at 09:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mazel Tov! Netanyahu | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)