U.S. And The International Criminal Court / Court Of Justice

International Court of Justice Only states may be parties in contentious cases before the International Court of Justice. This does not preclude private interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case against another. Jurisdiction of the court is limited only to cases where both parties have submitted their dispute to the court. Should either party fail "to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court", the Security Council may be called upon to "make recommendations or decide upon measures" if the security council deems such actions necessary. In practice, the Court's powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the Court's ruling, and by the Security Council's unwillingness to enforce consequences. However, in theory, "so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal," and "by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party". For example, in Nicaragua v. United States the United States of America had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the United States to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. In a split decision, the majority of the Court ruled the United States was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and ordered the US pay reparations (see note 2), although it never did. Examples of cases include: • A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law. • A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them. • A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area. • A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on 15 December 2004 due to lack of jurisdiction, because the FRY was not a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application. The last example can be used as evidence of the Court's failure to take on politically controversial cases; as the Court has no means to enforce its rulings, its survival is dependent on its political legitimacy. That would be endangered if it constantly came with rulings which states have no interest of taking into consideration. This is one of the Court's major shortcomings: its rulings must be considered in a political context. Not all countries accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, ICJ. For example, the United States "accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction with reservations" whereas Brazil "has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction." For a complete list of countries and their stance with the ICJ, see the official list on the Court's website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Note: http://www.globalpolicy... http://en.wikipedia.org...