Russell Coker wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 6:04:50 PM AEDT Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:
But thus far national commitments before the United Nations , are little more that statements of principle ie moral commitments Likewise the International Court in the Hague can make judgements of genocide etc; but as far as I know it has little power to enforce such judgements; given that national goverments, can simply declare that court to have no jurisdiction in their case. War criminals can be deported to The Hague from other countries. This means that people like George W Bush aren't able to travel much nowadays.
Yes; but I doubt the Hague will (or even could) force change in Australia's refugee laws; not with standing Australia's United Nation's commitments
Also if we can just ignore treaties why does the TPP have to be enforced?
I would suspect that such multilateral treaties incorporate their own punitive enforcements; so more like a contractual than a legal requirement
Can we ignore that one too?
See above
Why does the US refuse to sign so many treaties if they can just be ignored?
I would suspect a mix of : 1/ Primarily to avoid accusations that they acted contrary to their commitments ; so just to retain the moral high ground , or if prefered, to retain credibility 2/ Secondarily to avoid whatever punitive provisions the treaties may entail To take a simple case of say some bilateral trade treaty between two nations; if there was some dispute; analogous to a dispute between two parties to a contract; - in Australia one party can force adjudication before an Australian court but inorder for a dispute between two nations to be adjudicated by the International Court at the Hague; I suspect the court would need both parties to accept it has jurisdiction; assuming even that it would accept the case regards Rohan McLeod