51

Your question is slightly at odds with reality. First off, with the important exception of the US government, nobody sensible is quibbling over the mounting amount of evidence that Agent Orange had short and long lasting side effects. As you've noted already, the US government is not accepting any guilt or responsibility. So the real question is whether ...


27

Countries are not usually prosecuted, only the individuals responsible in the command structure. There is an international criminal court; not only has the US not signed up to obey its judgements, it has a specific law ("Hague Invasion Act") preventing the international court's judgements being enforced against US military staff. "international court" ...


22

The united states has never really been supportive of international law treaties. The main reason is many of them violate rights granted to citizens and are fairly major breaches of sovereignty. Most prominently is the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. The international Court of Justice is slightly different, in that it is partially ...


17

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection ...


9

It would be disadvantageous to the United States to join the International Criminal Court, and they have no obligation to. The ICC would be able to prosecute US citizens for crimes, just as it would be able to prosecute other citizens, and that would limit what the US would be able to do. What the ICC can prosecute for: War crimes Genocide Crimes against ...


9

It does not appear that the US employed Agent Orange as a chemical weapon, with the goal of causing cancer in the Vietnamese 30 years later. That was an unexpected side effect, not really understood at the time of employment, that also hit US troops. There might be some civil liability involved, but the essential ingredient of intent, in order to prosecute ...


7

That's simply not how international law works. Even when a country's regular military (not a private military contractor) openly defies strong international norms, prosecution is not a likely outcome. Countries are not simply “held liable” in that way. The UN is really best understood as a forum and a facilitator, with key technical functions (through the ...


6

The general answer is that independent courts which have the power to prosecute and publicize injustice and are potentially equipped to enforce justice; that such courts protect the weaker ones from the stronger ones, on all levels of the justice system. The stronger ones on all levels have less incentive to support justice since they can protect ...


5

1. Was this treaty approved by the Congress or the Senate? And in that case, does it mean treaty's termination also requires the Congress/Senate approval? Within the treaty it states: Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956; Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 14, 1956; Clarification:...


5

Rome Statute, Article 103: Article 103: Role of States in enforcement of sentences of imprisonment (a) A sentence of imprisonment shall be served in a State designated by the Court from a list of States which have indicated to the Court their willingness to accept sentenced persons. So, this looks pretty straightforward: certain States declare their ...


4

The World Legal Information Institute maintains a database of ICJ cases. The database is updated on a quarterly basis and it seems to include all cases (dismissed or not). For example, it includes Georgia’s (dismissed) case against Russia regarding South Ossetia and Abkhazia.


3

From Attacks Against the World Court by Bush, Kerry, and Congress Reveal Growing Bipartisan Hostility to International Law by Stephen Zunes: On July 9, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that the Israeli government’s construction of a separation wall running through the occupied Palestinian West Bank was illegal. Among other things, the ICJ ...


3

if the EU chose to uni-laterally erect a border violating the GFA The EU cannot do that. The border on one side is controlled by the UK Government and the sort-of-not-completely independent Northern Irish (NI) government and on the other side by the Republic of Ireland (ROI). All the EU could do is say to the ROI that they consider an open border with NI ...


3

The question before the court is not a question of "Is Jadhav guilty". Nor is it "Should Jadhav be executed". The court is not investigating a criminal case, as that is a matter for the national courts. The court only rules on international law, and this case is about access to consular relations. The court has jurisdiction based on treaty agreements of ...


2

The Institute for Government has published an explainer on this, the most relevant part of which is below, and sets out the two parties' current negotiating stance: UK–EU trade disputes If the UK government concludes a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU within the transition period, that agreement will set out a way to resolve ...


2

Yes, because you cannot criminally prosecute a country whatsoever, period. International public law is (1) a protocol for international politics and (2) a set of conventions to resolve disputes between states. Prosecuting states for their crimes is not one of them. In no occasion on history has a state been indicted of a crime by a court of law: not even at ...


2

International law is evolving over time. One trend in recent decades was to go away from strict respect for Westphalian Sovereignty towards the Responsibility to Protect which implies both a right and a duty to intervene in gross human rights abuses. This was an uneven process. The West vacillated between a desire to intervene out of moral considerations and ...


1

The arrest warrant for al-Bashir was the first warrant issued against an acting head of state, so there is not much precedent for what to do in such a situation. The warrant was somewhat contentious, with some arguing that heads of state should be immune against prosecution, and others that the fact that the ICC has predominately targeted Africans so far is ...


1

In addition to the previous answer, I would like to point out that both the USA and Israel believe that democratic countries that have their own viable court system which is independent from the political system, should preferably not be subject to any International Court. As a ramification of this principle, not the USA and nor Israel have ever submitted ...


1

In my opinion, no they won't be punished and to some extent, they CANNOT be punished at this point. They started out with small violations that went unnoticed and have now made it to this but the thing to be noted here is that they now have more influence over the world and punishing them isn't as easy as it would've been years ago. Indeed the tribunal ruled ...


1

If they could prove that the people broke US law when making, ordering them to be dropped and dropping them, then maybe perhaps they could try to sue USA. USA is not part to ICC so there's no recourse there either and you would need to go with what was in effect at the time. Saddams court was hardly fair though, but that's quite common when sentencing ex-...


1

Outside of the case you cited it doesn't look like there has been any material impact from this convention. This doesn't make it useless however, this is something that many would argue is useful to have codified. There is also an important tidbit hiding in article 12 of the convention: States Parties may not refuse a request for mutual legal assistance ...


1

TL;DR The ICJ has jurisdiction only if two states refer a matter to the court, or if a treaty (of course, one that is ratified by the parties) provides for jurisdiction. In practice, many countries opt out of (formally, "have reservation(s) against") such articles in treaty. A country can also accept compulsory jurisdiction, but only against another state ...


1

To answer this, I'm going to summarize the relevant Wikipedia page. You're right that the ICJ has no binding authority to compel states to follow its rulings. Thus, there's two types of cases it decides: Cases where both countries consent. This includes: Cases where both sides agree to take their dispute to the ICJ and be bound by its ruling. This is ...


1

Do The International Court at Hague require standing? Yes. At least in this case. For the defendants to have to pay reparations to the countries in question, they will have to show that they suffered damage or injustice. They also have to be states (which they are). Do all fourteen countries have standing as plaintiffs? That's up to the court to decide. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible