Image courtesy of serapheus under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
The central issue in international affairs centers upon a definition on the nature of sovereignty. Nations have long been in retreat to the whims of the world community. Seldom is there a vigorous defense of the independence of individual States. The historic norm of self-government has transformed into acquiescence, and justice is seen as a function of the international will. The idea that freedom resides within the boundaries of a civil state, now conflicts with the larger aspirations of collective governments.
Over a decade ago, in the American Journal of International Law, Thomas M Franck states: “The International Court of Justice’s recent decisions in the case concerning interim measures brought by Libya against the United States and the United Kingdom may be the most important and jurisprudentially rich of any handed down by this Court since the end of the Cold War”. He compares this decision to “Marbury v. Madison – the U.S. Supreme Court, while upholding the legality of a disputed act of a political branch of government, gave itself the ultimate power to determine whether the political branch, in any particular instance, has acted constitutionally. The judicial “politics” of Marbury were simple but brilliant.”
No need to go any further in analyzing the particulars in this decision. All that needs to be absorbed is that the underlying premise of judicial supremacy is the root cause of injustice. When this fallacy is extrapolated into the arena of international affairs, it is not difficult to see how judicial arrogance seeks to rule over disputes between conflicting nations. Allowing this supposition to go unchallenged permits the World Court to dictate arbitrary decrees based upon their own political interests.
Consider closely the rudimentary argument of lawyers who defend that the supreme law is the Constitution itself. If that was so, why is it that the ordinary practice of re-inventing the basic canons are the regular functions of judges? When this sanctioned fraud is applied to ruling that arbitrates among competing foreign interests, the result is usually a summary judgment from a court, who is accountable to only the political elites, that benefit from the enforcement of disciplinary rebuke to opposing nations.
The game of power politics on a world wide scale doesn’t have justice as its objective. No, the real task before the tribunal is to punish dissenting countries.
Is it sensible to allow a self proclaimed privileged and protected status for these magistrates? Accountability is at no time raised and negligence is never an issue. Just ponder the attitude expressed in the disclaimer of liability on International Court of Justice site:
1. The International Court of Justice hereby disclaims any liability or responsibility arising from the use of information or data contained at this site.
2. The Court, members of its staff and its contractors shall not be liable for any financial or other consequences whatsoever arising from the use of information or data contained at this site, including the inappropriate, improper or fraudulent use of such information or data.
3. The Court provides to users of ICJ data that information which the Court deems, on the basis of its own criteria and in its sole and complete discretion, to be appropriate for disclosure.
4. Information or data contained at this site may not be reproduced or used for commercial purposes.
5. The consultation or use of ICJ data shall automatically constitute full acceptance of the above disclaimer of liability.
When the United States withdrew from a treaty to establish an International Criminal Court, the outrage from human rights organizations turned up the volume. Only a die hard apologist for successive administrations would exempt the U.S. from past and present wrongs. However, holding our officials answerable for their misdeeds and crimes are the concerns of Americans, not the responsibility of utopian courts!
But what is lost in the mystification of legal gyrations is the key element of distinct and separate jurisdiction, that any country that enjoys the consent of its population, retains as a rationale for its authority. The proponent for global governance are assisting the sinister forces that envision an interdependent oligarchy. The ICJ is a show trial for rogue elements. Since the case to support the world community is suspect, even under the most favorable of characterizations, by what magical faith are we to believe that real justice is possible, let alone likely?
The preference may no longer be an effective option, but the decision is still a valid choice: Do you want a sovereign America or are you willing to relinquish the few remaining civil liberty protections to a world court? If Mr. Franck’s view prevails and a reincarnated John Marshall, in international garb, sits in session on a ICJ courtroom – justice will be defined by a foreign lawyer. Self determination cannot exist, when jurisdiction is reserved for and by the elites. The globe has not shrunk and remains distinct and separated by culture and heritage. Only a idiot would forgo a trial by a jury of your peers. You get a preview of the planned judicial system that’s coming for the dissenters. Move over Milosevic, the waiting list for righteousness has gone international.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”