Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: carranza2 who wrote (216411)	2/5/2007 5:28:24 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) of 281500

They did have jurisdiction over us in certain cases, and there is a chance Bush cannot withdraw from such jurisdiction by himself. lawofnations.blogspot.com I believe there is still jurisdiction in this case: 3) The U.S. is still party to similar Optional Protocols granting the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes involving the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and about 19 Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaties. Assuming the U.S. withdrawal is effective, these appear to be the only self-executing treaties over which the ICJ continues to maintain binding jurisdiction over the United States. The United States already has withdrawn from the ICJ's general compulsory jurisdiction. If so, the ICJ's relevance (at least to the United States) will continue to fade and decline. ............. Do you have to agree to be tried for war crimes and illegal wars? I can't say I'm certain of the law here, but no war criminal is going to agree to that. I thought there was an exception for war crimes trials.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next