Not even the US trusts the decisions of the ICJ

Belize is being shoved to go to the ICJ by the US OAS branch but when they had to get a ruling at the ICJ they basically said,

“Oh hell no, this court is bullshit.”

The United States and the ICJ

The United States has long had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice, which primarily arbitrates legal disputes among UN member nations that recognize its jurisdiction. The United States withdrew from the court’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 after the court ruled it owed Nicaragua war reparations. The United States also disagreed with the court’s stance that it failed to fulfill its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 2005 in cases involving Mexican nationals on death row. “There’s always been a little bit of a love-hate relationship” between the United States and the International Court of Justice, says Judge Joan E. Donoghue, the U.S. member of the court. However, she notes that more recently, the United States has increased its engagement with the ICJ especially with respect to individuals who are facing the death penalty in the United States. She says the United States is making considerable efforts to come into compliance, despite serious obstacles within its own constitutional system.

Donoghue says she does not see herself as a representative of the United States to the court. “When I was at the State Department I served my country by representing it,” she says, “and now I serve my country by being independent of it.” While Donoghue acknowledges that the judges’ nationality plays a role, she says it is for a different reason than people think. “Nationality has shaped the way we think because of the schooling we have, the kind of legal training we have, certainly our perspectives on issues are influenced by our nationality, but we are so much more than that,” she says.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

The United States’ withdrawal from International Court of Justice Jurisdiction in Cosular Case: Reasons and Consequences

by: John Quigley

In 2005, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. The Optional Protocol provides for jurisdiction in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when any state party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) seeks to sue another state party for violating it.

Controversy over VCCR Article 36, which allows a foreign national under arrest to contact a home state consul, prompted the withdrawal. The United States had just lost two cases in the ICJ arising out of situations in which police in the United States had failed to observe consular access for arrested foreign nationals. The withdrawal was a response to those ICJ decisions.

The withdrawal raised questions about the intent of the United States to comply with its obligations under the VCCR. For a number of years, the United States has taken a view of the consequences of non-compliance with VCCR Article 36 that is at odds with the views of other states party to the VCCR. The United States reads VCCR Article 36 as affording less protection for a foreign national whose consular access was not respected than do other states.

Read the entire report here

There is also this report that shows that there are clear bias in the ICJ and Belize does not meet any of them really.

Is the International Court of Justice Biased?

by: Eric Posner and Miguel F. P. de Figueiredo (University of Chicago Law School)

Abstract. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over disputes between nations, and has decided dozens of cases since it began operations in 1946. Its defenders argue that the ICJ decides cases impartially and confers legitimacy on the international legal system. Its critics argue that the members of the ICJ vote the interests of the states that appoint them. Prior empirical scholarship is ambiguous. We test the charge of bias using statistical methods. We find strong evidence that (1) judges favor the states that appoint them, and (2) judges favor states whose wealth level is close to that of the judges’ own state; and weaker evidence that (3) judges favor states whose political system is similar to that of the judges’ own state, and (4) (more weakly) judges favor states whose culture (language and religion) is similar to that of the judges’ own state. We find weak or no evidence that judges are influenced by regional and military alignments.

Read the entire report here

Now you make of those what you want, take them how you will. This is only a note to bring them to your attention.

About FiWeBelize

FiWeBelize is dedicated to providing quality information to our visitors. We aim to provide an open forum where people can have a voice without censorship while maintaining respect for the opinions of others. Find us on Google

Mek wi hyaa weh yu tink... Let's hear your thoughts...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.