Tag Archives: International Court of Justice

Are We Willing To Go Back To The Nineteenth Century?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article about several decisions by various international courts. The combined affect of these decisions is to make fossil fuels illegal. Hang on to your gas stove!

The article reports:

It’s a piece in The New York Times–for him, it was the international version with a different headline–that argues that several decisions by various international courts amount to outlawing the extraction and use of fossil fuels.

It’s hard to argue with their conclusion because I am not an international lawyer, but let’s assume that the claim is true, as it appears to be on its face.

Rulings by the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea all suggest that the climate harms resulting from the burning of fossil fuels violate international law.

The New York Times article states:

The I.C.J.’s unanimous opinion reinforced these conclusions and broadened their reach, stating that countries must protect citizens from the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change. When a country fails to curb greenhouse gas emissions — whether by producing or consuming fossil fuels, approving new exploration to find them or subsidizing the industry — it may be held liable for “an internationally wrongful act,” the court’s 15 judges said.

This makes it much harder for any government or company to say that rules don’t apply to them or they don’t have to act. Read together, these three landmark legal rulings leave no doubt that continuing fossil fuel production and use, let alone expanding it, violates the law. It is a cease-and-desist notice to fossil fuel producers.

This isn’t the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but it’s close.

Never forget:

On March 30, 2016, I posted the following (here):

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

Whenever you see someone claiming global governance and talking about climate change, consider the above quote.

Meanwhile, follow the link above to read the entire article at Hot Air.

Another Reason To Leave The United Nations

Posted on by

On Sunday, CBN News reported that on Friday, the United Nations voted 98-17, with 52 abstentions to have the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to advise the world body concerning Israel’s “occupation” of territories in the West Bank (biblical Judea and Samaria, including Jerusalem), maintaining that it is a form of de facto annexation. Thankfully, the United States voted against the resolution. The measure will next go to the UN General plenary in December to be officially ratified.

The article reports:

Lapid  (outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid) cautioned that the vote could prompt more violence from Palestinians. “This step will not change the reality on the ground, nor will it help the Palestinian people in any way; it may even result in an escalation,” he warned. “Supporting this move is a prize for terrorist organizations and the campaign against Israel.”

Israel’s UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan tweeted, “there is no authority that can declare that the Jewish nation is an occupier in its homeland,” and added that the appeal to the ICJ in The Hague was “the last nail in the burial coffin” of reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. Defense Minister Benny Gantz said the resolution was “disconnected from reality.”

The resolution contains language stating that Israel’s continued control of territories it won in the 1967 Six-Day War can be considered a form of annexation, and therefore is not legal. Since 1967, Israel declared sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, but military law still applies in other parts of the West Bank. 

The Biden administration had campaigned against the UN resolution and urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas not to introduce it. Part of Abbas’s strategy may be to cement his legacy, since the 87-year-old president has not held elections in 16 years and a succession struggle is in its early stages.

The resolution also calls for investigations into Israeli actions concerning its capital which are “aimed at altering the demographic composition, character, and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem.” It also says Israel has adopted “discriminatory legislation and measures.”

Until the Palestinian Authority removes from its charter the goal of removing Israel as a nation, there is no possibility of a peaceful, two-state solution. The Palestinian people may want peace, but their leaders do not. We need to remember that when the Arabs controlled the Old City part of Jerusalem, the Jews were not allowed to worship there. Jews are still not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount. Israel is a democracy. Arab states generally do not support democracy.

American Sovereignty

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Times reported that the International Court of Justice has ordered the United States to lift some Iran sanctions. The Court wants to make sure that the people of Iran are not harmed by the sanctions. Does the Court want to set up another ‘oil for food’ program like the one in the 1990’s? It’s amazing how much money dishonest people made from that program while the people of Iraq starved. (article here)

First of all, what are the sanctions on Iran about? Iran is probably the largest source of money for terrorism in the world. Iran supplies weapons and military equipment to Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the government of Syria, Palestinian terrorists, etc. It would be nice if Iran had a little less money to spread around. Iran has also partnered with North Korea and Russia in developing nuclear technology. This is not a country that is working toward peace.

There is also the matter of human rights abuses by the Iranian government. Homosexuals are dropped from buildings or worse. Dissidents are jailed and never heard from again. Fashion police roam the streets and beat women for being immodestly dressed. Human rights are not part of the Iranian government.

The sanctions are putting pressure on the regime. As the financial situation of the people worsens, they are rebelling against the totalitarian government. In this rebellion they have the support of America. If the International Court of Justice truly supported human rights and the humanitarian treatment of people, they would support the sanctions as a way to bring freedom to the people of Iran.

The article states:

The ICC’s David Scheffer responded in the Guardian by saying Bolton’s speech “isolates the United States from international criminal justice and severely undermines our leadership in bringing perpetrators of atrocity crimes to justice elsewhere in the world.”

Wahh.

In case the United Nations hadn’t noticed, this is the Donald Trump administration — not the Barack Obama wishy-washy White House. On globalism first, America second, this president doesn’t play that. MAGA, anyone?

The ICC, apparently, isn’t getting the message.

“The United Nations‘ highest court has ordered the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to the safety of civil aviation,” NBC wrote.

And on that: “Ordered” seems a rather remarkable word. Better would be “begged.”

After all, what is the ICC to America? America may have helped establish this court back in 2002 — but that’s the extent of the relationship. America has not joined as a state party; the ICC does not dictate policy and procedure to the United States.

It’s almost a delicious anticipation to sit and wonder what Bolton will say to this ICC “order.”

Chances are, given his past and this administration’s bold “America First” dealings on the foreign policy front, it’ll be something like, Bite me, ICC.

That would be well stated, for sure.

I like having a President who not only stands up for American sovereignty, but is willing to support the quest for freedom in other countries.

What Would LOST Mean ?

Posted on by

Frank Gaffney posted an article at Townhall.com about the Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) which may come up in the lame-duck session of the Senate at the end of the year. The treaty essentially will give the United Nations control over all waterways and set up a justice system at the United Nations that all nations would be under. In a few words, it is a direct threat to American sovereignty.

The article reports:

First, as Senator Lott once warned, ratification of LOST would commit the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to U.S. military and industrial operations. While LOST proponents argue that the United States will choose available arbitration mechanisms to avoid legal decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), such arbitration panels are no-less perilous for U.S. interests as the decisive, “swing” arbiters would be appointed by generally unfriendly UN-affiliated bureaucrats. The arbitration panels can also be relied upon to look to rulings by the ICJ or ITLOS to inform their own decisions.

Furthermore, while there is a LOST provision exempting “military activity” from such dispute resolution mechanisms, the Treaty makes no attempt to define “military activity,” virtually guaranteeing that such matters will be litigated – in all likelihood to our detriment – before one or another of LOST’s arbitration mechanisms. And the rulings of such arbitrators cannot be appealed.

I don’t think this is what our founding fathers had in mind.

The article concludes:

Of particular concern is the fact that LOST creates an international taxation regime. It does so by empowering the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to tax Americans for the purposes of meeting its ownadministrative costs and of globally redistributing revenue derived from the exploitation of seabed resources.

It is a travesty to portray atreaty with such clearly sovereignty-sapping provisions as an enhancement to our national sovereignty. LOST should be rejected this time – as President Ronald Reagan did thirty years ago and as Senator Lott urged twenty-five years later.

The UN has shown a definite lack of wisdom in selecting members of its Human Rights Commission, do we really want them to exercise any control over America?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta