Guest kskristinesmith Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. source "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_of_the_International_Court_of_Justice" I am very much bothered as to what will happen to those country who do not agree or submit to the ruling of the court... Does this mean that the International Court of Justice cannot acquire jurisdiction over them? ________________________________________________________ FAST SLIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly.source "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_of_the_International_Court_of_Justice" I am very much bothered as to what will happen to those country who do not agree or submit to the ruling of the court... Does this mean that the International Court of Justice cannot acquire jurisdiction over them? Why should you be bothered? It is not the duty of nations to bow before such an international body. Those nations whose leaders think it is to their benefit may sign on, and others may not. One cannot "acquire" jurisdiction over others, other than through the means of a war of conquest, unless they agree to such jurisdiction willingly, and for them to do so, it must be to their benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why should you be bothered? It is not the duty of nations to bow before such an international body. Those nations whose leaders think it is to their benefit may sign on, and others may not. One cannot "acquire" jurisdiction over others, other than through the means of a war of conquest, unless they agree to such jurisdiction willingly, and for them to do so, it must be to their benefit. so what you're saying is that war crimes should not be judged by the world if the crime is done by the nations with bigger guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 so what you're saying is that war crimes should not be judged by the world if the crime is done by the nations with bigger guns. Well war crimes tend not to be judged when the nation has bigger guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Well war crimes tend not to be judged when the nation has bigger guns. oh it's judged. you mean, they tend to get away with it. let me throw in an analogy. this is for you krusty! so, like, people like bonam are okay with pedophilia in thailand because the pedophiles can get away with doing what they're doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 oh it's judged. you mean, they tend to get away with it.let me throw in an analogy. this is for you krusty! so, like, people like bonam are okay with pedophilia in thailand because the pedophiles can get away with doing what they're doing? Why are you looking for a safe place to bury a minor's hole? As screwed up as you have shown yourself to be I never figured you for an evil sicko. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why are you looking for a safe place to bury a minor's hole? no i'm not. As screwed up as you have shown yourself to be I never figured you for an evil sicko. :angry: not sure how you managed to translate the comment into something totally different, but okay. this could explain why you're so confused and it could explain how and why you've equated gandhi supporters to bush supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 oh it's judged. you mean, they tend to get away with it.let me throw in an analogy. this is for you krusty! so, like, people like bonam are okay with pedophilia in thailand because the pedophiles can get away with doing what they're doing? wtf?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why are you looking for a safe place to bury a minor's hole? As screwed up as you have shown yourself to be I never figured you for an evil sicko. :angry: It's definately a cheap shot. It would earn him a sh!tkicking in person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 wtf?? Pretty much my reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) I'm shocked, actually. That would earn one a shitkicking and a lawsuit in person. Edited July 31, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.