2 things quickly minty.
would like to see the cases you spoke of where the ICJ was ‘routinely’ ignored. ( aka cite?)
For me personally, discussion of if/hows/whys etc of the actual guilt of the brothers was irrelevant to my issue, so I refused to get sidetracked on that. That’s not the same as agreeing there was no problem. I don’t know the case, and again, my issue wasn’t specific to it either.
Are you really not seeing the difference between applying diplomatic pressure and getting an international court to say “We’re the final authority here.”? It’s crystal clear to me.
As for the ICJ’s rulings being ignored, here’s a good example of NATO telling the ICJ to get stuffed: http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/e97scfait.html
I’d tried to post this earlier, but didn’t go through apparently.
minty A. we agreed to abide by the arbitration. The ICJ had jurisdiction to settle disputes between nations that had signed that treaty. Germany and the US both had. The difference I see that you apparently don’t is that the US seemed to have no difficulty rattling it’s saber around the globe on behalf of it’s citizens, even when they were clearly in the wrong and we admitted that they were (the Singapore kid), but when it came to actually abide by a treaty we’d signed, allowing another nation to question if we’d treated one of their citizens fairly, our response is a curt ‘yea we did, now leave us alone’?
You point out simultaneously that 1. the ICJ 'expected/demanded compliance, and yet 2. Their rulings are routinely ignored.
which is it please? If they’re routinely ignored, why bother flouting it in the first place?
Because:[list][]We did not agree to arbitrate or otherwise submit disputes between a state and an individual to the ICJ.[]We had already determined, in a constitutional and scrupulously fair manner, that justice would best be served by executing these two guys.We can. Or to put it another way, we’re a sovereign nation and we can do what we like, as long as we’re willing to accept the consequences from the rest of the world.
As far as I can tell, the US has cooperated completely in settling a dispute between the US and Germany. As a sovereign nation, the US retains unto itself the rights thereof, excepting only those that have been voluntarily relinquished by treaty. Therefore, the ICJ is capable only of compelling the US to do things that fall under the scope of the treaties it signed.
To compare with normal arbitration, if I enter into an agreement to arbitrate a financial disagreement with you, the arbitrator cannot decide that the only way to redress your grievance is by dictating my conduct in an affair with Minty Green. That would be outside the scope of whatever contract you and I made with the arbitrator. Since the US never gave up to the ICJ its right to try and punish people who commit crimes in the US (by my interpretation of the treaties at least), ordering a stay of execution is a power that the ICJ does not have.
The ICJ could request that a stay be provided to get testimony necessary to resolve the dispute, but it cannot compel one. Germany could protest the execution in several ways, as the US did to Singapore or Peru. However, just as in those cases, the individuals being punished have no recourse before the ICJ.
That the US wants to be listened to at the same time as it wants to not have to listen to Germany is pigheaded, but it is the US’s prerogative to do so.
Suppose the US decided at the first intervention of the ICJ that the case should be decided before the executions.
What power would the Federal Goverment have over the state of Arizona?
If it could command a stay of execution, where is this based in US Law?
If not, does this mean that for any States Rights issue, treaties with the US are meaningless?
All the power in the world. All they’d have to do would be to file an injunction in federal court ordering Arizona not to execute the prisoner.
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, along with the Constitution’s delegation of the treaty power to the federal government.
N/A
Hope that clarifies.