# International law buffs: Can the US be sued for this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 22, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426 "2003-03-22T21:40:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/1 "2003-03-22T21:40:25Z")
After NATO bombed Yugoslavia, they in turn filed applications before the ICJ against all the NATO members involved in the attacks. How plausible is it for Iraq to sue the US and Great Britain for the illegality of the use of force? And could another country like France also sue (if say ELF oil installations were destroyed)?Whold they have a strong case? ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/2 "2003-03-22T22:26:13Z")
Unless the US and UK agreed to binding arbitration, Iraq could complain all it wanted to the ICJ and they won’t get much other than sympathy. ---
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/3 "2003-03-22T22:37:59Z")
What about France? let’s say their oil interests were damaged during the war? Could they not plead something similar to what Iran submitted to the court in the “Oil Platforms” case? ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/4 "2003-03-22T22:38:18Z")
No. The International Court of Justice, commonly known as the “World Court,” is an essentially voluntary arrangement. The Court is “open” to the nations that have ratified the [Statute of the International Court of Justice](http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/Basetext/istatute.htm), and to other nations under certain conditions, but a nation cannot be hauled into court and subject to its judgment without the nation’s consent: > [@](#): > > **Article 35** > > 1. The Court shall be open to the states parties to the present Statute. > > 2. The conditions under which the Court shall be open to other states shall, subject to the special provisions contained in treaties in force, be laid down by the Security Council, but in no case shall such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court. > > . . . . > > **Article 36** > > 1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. > > 2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: > > a. the interpretation of a treaty; > > b. any question of international law; > > c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; > > d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. > > 1. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states, or for a certain time. > > 2. Such declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the parties to the Statute and to the Registrar of the Court. > > 3. Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms. > > 4. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court. The United States has refrained from submitting itself to the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/5 "2003-03-22T22:41:49Z")
But there is jurisdiction in paragraph 1 of article 36 if a treaty specifically gives the ICJ jurisdiction ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/6 "2003-03-22T22:41:56Z")
Note that the ICJ ruled that they did not have jurisdiction in the NATO case. ---
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/7 "2003-03-22T22:47:17Z")
But in the oil platforms case, they did have jurisdiction because the treaty of amity between the US and Iran stated as much, Isn’t there a similar treaty between the US and France or Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/8 "2003-03-22T22:51:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nanu \* > \*\*But there is jurisdiction in paragraph 1 of article 36 if a treaty specifically gives the ICJ jurisdiction \*\* True. But a nation becomes subject to jurisdiction on that basis only if it ratifies the treaty on which jurisdiction is based. The United Nations Charter (unlike, for example, the Constitution of the United States) contains no “supremacy clause” under which the United Nations can enact positive legislation that binds the member nations. When the United Nations is interested in getting the international community onto the same page on some given topic, it typically drafts an international convention or a treaty, which it then submits to the member nations for their ratification. The United States has never ratified such a treaty that would subject it to the Court’s jurisdiction for acts of state. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/9 "2003-03-22T22:58:35Z")
The ICJ do have compulsory juristriction over the US, due to an agreement, so their arbitartion would be automatically be binding with no need for an agreement. A very simlair case to this would be when Nicauragua sued the US for terrorism in 1984. Nicauragua won and were three years later awarded quite a large amount of money. However, the USA disagreed that compulsory juristriction applied in this case due to some excpetions in their agreement and completely ignored the judgment. Nicauragua has not seen any of the money it was awraded. [http://wwlia.org/icj.htm](http://wwlia.org/icj.htm) [http://www.headnorth.com/clients/mattj/casestudy.htm](http://www.headnorth.com/clients/mattj/casestudy.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/10 "2003-03-22T22:59:42Z")
Shure they have, an example is the TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS. bteween Iran and the US her look: [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iop/iopframe.htm](http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iop/iopframe.htm) ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/11 "2003-03-22T23:00:22Z")
Clarification: They did not have jurisdiction over the NATO countries that had not submitted to compulsory jurisdiction. **Nanu** , I guess you don’t believe what I have to say, since we’ve been discussing this on a GD thread. It may well be that the United States is in violation of some provision of some treaty under which it has submitted to ICJ jurisdiction, but none of those hypothetical treaties deal with the legality of the use of force - that’s in the UN Charter. If you can find such a treaty then let us know, but I bet other international lawyers would have pointed it out if it existed. It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that a third-party would have a claim against the United States for its actions in Iraq. I can’t imagine what damages France could claim to have suffered. ---
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/12 "2003-03-22T23:02:26Z")
Article XXI paragraph 2 gives the ICJ jurisdiction the compulsary clause was terminated by the US in 1984 because of that particular case ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/13 "2003-03-22T23:05:34Z")
**MC** : The U.S. withdrew from the ICJ after (actually, during) that case. **Nanu** : Is there a similar treaty between Iraq and the United States? The one you linked is completely irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/14 "2003-03-22T23:16:15Z")
What Iran pleaded in the oil platforms case is that the destruction of oil installations by the US military constituted a breach of the treaty because it hindered Iran’s freedom of commerce, the court found jurisdiction to hear this case, I’m just asking if it is not too far fetched for some country to file a similar application. France can claim that it´s freedom of commerce was hindered by this war. ---
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/15 "2003-03-22T23:18:26Z")
I’m not sure there is, but as I understand it, these are fairly common treaties, and I would think there is one between the US and France. ---
**Author:** ![Nanu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dec6dc/32.png) [@Nanu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/16 "2003-03-22T23:21:50Z")
The UK is in trouble because they have given the ICJ compulsary jurisdiction ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/17 "2003-03-22T23:46:44Z")
Take a look at these documents: [Basis of the Court’s Jurisdiction](http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasic_basisjurisdiction.html) [Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court](http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicdeclarations.htm) [Treaties Containing Clauses Relating to the Jurisdiction of the Court](http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasictreatiesandotherdocs.htm) There are no treaties to which Iraq and the U.S. are parties that could possibly apply. Again, I cannot imagine what kind of damages a third party could claim as a result of the war. If you can come up with an idea of how Uruguay or the other countries on the kist could make a claim, let us know. Reciprocity generally applies to jurisdiction, so only a country that has accepted compulsory jurisdiction can bring a claim against another country. ---
**Author:** ![Arturas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@Arturas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arturas)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/18 "2003-03-23T11:27:49Z")
From what I have seen (very limited experience) such things are settled as between private individuals, out of court. In other words, France would say that if the US does not want frosty relations, etc. then the US should pay for x amount of damages. Thus France has a much better chance of receiving payment than Nicaragua, being a bigger trading partner. Iraq’s claims would be hindered by the change in government. The government of Saddam Hussein would have the right to petition for damages but not a government installed by the US (and there will be no elections until the US is sure of winning them). ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-law-buffs-can-the-us-be-sued-for-this/163426/19 "2003-03-23T17:13:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Arturas \* > \*\*Iraq’s claims would be hindered by the change in government. The government of Saddam Hussein would have the right to petition for damages but not a government installed by the US (and there will be no elections until the US is sure of winning them). \*\* Actually, I change in government does not affect a state’s legal obligations or claims. But we can be quite sure that the United States is going to install a U.S.-friendly government. Note that this rule can have screwy results, such as the new Iraqi regime being forced to pay reparations for acts committed by Saddam Hussein.