We want dialogue! No, not here, not now!

[pauper]

It seems at least someone somewhere in the corridors of power in Buenos Aires is aware of the ICJ and its functions -

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina vs Uruguay)

 

[expatinowncountry]

You are confusing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the International Court of Crime.

One ICJ example: Dispute between Norway and Denmark over Greenland.
Denmark won, Norway abided by the ruling.

You are mentioning a Maritime delimitation case... not the same type of issue than the Falklands. The ICJ (for your information a UN agency) can only provide non-binding legal interpretation on issues related to Colonies. In that sense is as useless as the Decolonization Committee. In any case, the Argentine could try the ICJ too... it would be more fun!

Again, you seem to not understand the two key words: jurisdiction and mandate.

 

[John.St]

You are mentioning a Maritime delimitation case... not the same type of issue than the Falklands. The ICJ (for your information a UN agency) can only provide non-binding legal interpretation on issues related to Colonies. In that sense is as useless as the Decolonization Committee. In any case, the Argentine could try the ICJ too... it would be more fun!

Again, you seem to not understand the two key words: jurisdiction and mandate.

Sovereignity over Greenland is a "Maritime delimitation case." Do some research, please.

 

[pauper]

With all due respect, do some research first.

Addition: List of Contentious Cases: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3

In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent.

Yes, as in these golden oldies for example:

In the 1940s and 1950s, the United Kingdom offered to refer the issue of sovereignty over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to the International Court of Justice or international arbitration for settlement. Regrettably, the Republic of Argentina, without explanation, rejected all of these offers and refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in this matter.

 

[expatinowncountry]

Sovereignity over Greenland is a "Maritime delimitation case." Do some research, please.

Research done. Please let me know what your research found about ICJ jurisdiction over colonies.

 

[John.St]

Research done. Please let me know what your research found about ICJ jurisdiction over colonies.

Denmark claimed sovereignity over Greenland (then a Danish colony), so did Norway added: over part of East Greenland.

They agreed to bring the case before ICJ. Based on the evidence, the court ruled that Denmark had sovereignity over Greenland.

The case is a parallel to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas dispute.

 

[expatinowncountry]

Denmark claimed sovereignity over Greenland (then a Danish colony), so did Norway.

They agreed to bring the case before ICJ. Based on the evidence, the court ruled that Denmark had sovereignity over Greenland.

The case is a parallel to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas dispute.

Just to clarify something, I am totally in favour of the self-determination of the Kelpers (or any other people for what matter). My point is different, regarding colonies, the ICJ can only provide non binding ruling and advisory on this type of issues. It does not have the mandate nor the jurisdiction to impose a solution. Countries may choose to put themselves under jurisdiction the same way that countries may accept or not the non binding resolutions of the UN. Argentine can choose to not attend the ICJ the same way the British government ignores the UN decolonization resolution to seat down and negotiate with Argentina.

Again, the ICJ per se does NOT have jurisdiction or mandate on this issue. The mandates come from the countries. The key words are once again mandate and jurisdiction.

 

[John.St]

Just to clarify something, I am totally in favour of the self-determination of the Kelpers (or any other people for what matter). My point is different, regarding colonies, the ICJ can only provide non binding ruling and advisory on this type of issues. It does not have the mandate nor the jurisdiction to impose a solution. Countries may choose to put themselves under jurisdiction the same way that countries may accept or not the non binding resolutions of the UN. Argentine can choose to not attend the ICJ the same way the British government ignores the UN decolonization resolution to seat down and negotiate with Argentina.

Again, the ICJ per se does NOT have jurisdiction or mandate on this issue. The mandates come from the countries. The key words are once again mandate and jurisdiction.

The mandate and jurisdiction is a result of the two (or more) countries bringing their dispute before ICJ.

All UN members, which have joined the ICJ, have the duty to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If the parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. This is a possibilty, but is very rarely used.

"so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal," and "by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party."

 

[John.St]

Article 59

The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.

http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0

Added:

Charter of the United Nations
Article 94

Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

 

[Gringoboy]

Thats a huge Lie!, the Argentine Air Force its strong and could destroy any british force.

You do live on the same planet as us, don't you?