Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nikole Wollerstein who wrote (21171)	6/12/2004 7:27:05 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81502

Nikita > Tell me something about international law. Anything. We have discussed this before. It's not a bullshit story, in fact, it's a serious thing. However, it isn't a law that a single country makes for itself and there are no policemen to enforce it. Rather, it is a series of mutual agreements between countries which define how they should behave. The present idea of International Law comes from the decisions at the Nuremberg Trials where the US was a major participant and also the Founding Charter of the United Nations, to which the US was also a major contributor and signatory. wordiq.com >>As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization. As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization. << Here's quite an extensive description of International Law. wordiq.com >>In the case that diplomacy is considered inadequate, the United Nations has established the International Court of Justice to render judgments on the breach of a treaty or a legal custom. However, jurisdiction may be had only with consent, and so the court has little power to address a dispute with unwilling parties. A treaty may also provide for specific procedures to resolve a disagreement or address a breach, such as referral to a particular international body (i.e., the ICJ), or the appointment of an arbitration panel. Violations of the UN Charter may also be raised by the aggrieved state in the General Assembly or brought to the attention of the Security Council. Enforcement measures may include resolutions censoring the offending state, economic sanctions, or even approval of military action if the violation involves the use of force. << And here's a good description of the International Court of Justice wordiq.com Subsequently an International Criminal Court has been set up, particularly to try war crimes, because it was recognised that the International Court of Justice didn't have enough "teeth". The US and Israel are not participants. news.bbc.co.uk >>The United States has withdrawn from a treaty to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC), provoking outrage from human rights organisations. Unsigning the treaty will throw the United States into opposition against the most important new institution for enforcing human rights in 50 years In a letter to the United Nations delivered on Monday, the US says it will not consider itself bound by the treaty - even though Bill Clinton signed up to it in 2000. The US has vehemently opposed the setting up of the ICC, fearing its soldiers and diplomats could be brought before the court which will hear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity. <<