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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (9097)	5/19/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: Stormweaver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

May 17, 1999 - Brussels - NATO Press Conference Editor's Note: Yugoslavia has taken NATO's bombing to the International Court of Justice charging violation of a number of international laws. This exchange took place yesterday between a reporter and NATO Spokeman Jamie Shea: Question : In The Hague last week the NATO governments have argued that the International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction. I want to know if NATO is afraid of being judged by the International Court of Justice, and also what will happen if NATO is brought before the International Criminal Tribunal, will they also argue that there is no jurisdiction? Is NATO not prepared to recognise the authority of the International Court of Justice? Jamie Shea : As you know, without NATO countries there would be no International Court of Justice, nor would there be any International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia because NATO countries are in the forefront of those who have established these two tribunals, who fund these tribunals and who support on a daily basis their activities. We are the upholders, not the violators, of international law. Question : Shouldn't you recognise the jurisdiction then? Jamie Shea : We obviously recognise the jurisdiction of these tribunals, but I can assure you, when these tribunals look at Yugoslavia I think they will find themselves fully occupied with the far more obvious breaches of international law that have been committed by Belgrade than any hypothetical breaches that may have occurred by the NATO countries, and I expect that to apply to both. So that is our position on that, we recognise international law, in fact we recognise international law so much that when we see a massive violation of it, with thousands of people driven from their homes, thousands of people killed, thousands of young men unaccounted for, others being herded around like cattle within their own country, we don't just shout about it, we do something to stop it because we uphold international law. Question : Well why don't you recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice? Jamie Shea : I said we do recognise the jurisdiction. Question : No, because you were only arguing that it ... every NATO country was arguing that there was no jurisdiction and you did not deal with the substantive issue. If you believe that international law is so important, why would you not allow the court to judge on these substantive issues. Jamie Shea : The charge by Yugoslavia was brought under the genocide convention. That does not apply to NATO countries. As to whom it does apply, I think we know the answer there.