Fletch wrote:UK Rejects International Court of Justice Opinion on the Chagos Islands
In parliament, Alan Duncan for the government has just rejected yesterday’s stunning result at the International Court of Justice, where British occupation of the Chagos Islands was found unlawful by a majority of 13 to 1, with all the judges from EU countries amongst those finding against the UK.
This represents a serious escalation in the UK’s rejection of multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the US model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law. As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice; this is utterly unprecedented.
Duncan put forward two arguments. Firstly that the ICJ opinion was “only” advisory to the General Assembly. Secondly, he argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction as the case was a bilateral dispute with Mauritius (and thus could only go before the ICJ with UK consent, which is not given).
But here Duncan is – against all British precedent and past policy – defying a ruling of the ICJ. The British government argued strenuously in the present case against ICJ jurisdiction, on just the grounds Duncan cited. The ICJ considered the UK’s arguments, together with arguments from 32 other states and from the African Union. The ICJ ruled that it did have jurisdiction, because this was not a bilateral dispute but part of the UN ordained process of decolonisation.
The International Court of Justice’s ruling on this point is given at length in paras 83 to 91 of its Opinion. This is perhaps the key section:
As stated at para 183, that the court did have jurisdiction was agreed unanimously, with even the US judge (the sole dissenter on the main question) in accord. For the British government to reject the ICJ’s unanimous ruling on jurisdiction, and quote that in parliament as the reason for not following the ICJ Opinion, is an astonishing abrogation of international law by the UK. It really is unprecedented. The repudiation of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention over Julian Assange pointed the direction the UK is drifting, but that body does not have the prestige of the International Court of Justice.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-reject ... ds/5669869
Typical reaction from the Tory government. Sanction Russia on the word of the media, condemn Syria on the word of the terrorists and sanction Iran in case they want to defend themselves but The International Court of Justice? Who cares...
Grafenwalder wrote:It's a bitter sweet "victory" though as this young Chagossian told Channel 4 news the other night. When first kicked off the island by UK they were sent to Mauritius who didn't want them, treated them badly and many ended up living on the streets. Instead of giving the island back to Mauritius they should hand it over to the Chagossians who in turn, should tell the yanks to pack their bags and get off their island. In fact UK should make reparations to them and the US should pay Chagossians backdated rent for squatting on stolen land.
https://www.channel4.com/news/un-court- ... should-end
Chagos Islanders remind us that Britain is a shameful coloniser, not a colony
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ser-colony
jra wrote:Fletch wrote:UK Rejects International Court of Justice Opinion on the Chagos Islands
In parliament, Alan Duncan for the government has just rejected yesterday’s stunning result at the International Court of Justice, where British occupation of the Chagos Islands was found unlawful by a majority of 13 to 1, with all the judges from EU countries amongst those finding against the UK.
This represents a serious escalation in the UK’s rejection of multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the US model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law. As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice; this is utterly unprecedented.
Duncan put forward two arguments. Firstly that the ICJ opinion was “only” advisory to the General Assembly. Secondly, he argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction as the case was a bilateral dispute with Mauritius (and thus could only go before the ICJ with UK consent, which is not given).
But here Duncan is – against all British precedent and past policy – defying a ruling of the ICJ. The British government argued strenuously in the present case against ICJ jurisdiction, on just the grounds Duncan cited. The ICJ considered the UK’s arguments, together with arguments from 32 other states and from the African Union. The ICJ ruled that it did have jurisdiction, because this was not a bilateral dispute but part of the UN ordained process of decolonisation.
The International Court of Justice’s ruling on this point is given at length in paras 83 to 91 of its Opinion. This is perhaps the key section:
As stated at para 183, that the court did have jurisdiction was agreed unanimously, with even the US judge (the sole dissenter on the main question) in accord. For the British government to reject the ICJ’s unanimous ruling on jurisdiction, and quote that in parliament as the reason for not following the ICJ Opinion, is an astonishing abrogation of international law by the UK. It really is unprecedented. The repudiation of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention over Julian Assange pointed the direction the UK is drifting, but that body does not have the prestige of the International Court of Justice.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-reject ... ds/5669869
Typical reaction from the Tory government. Sanction Russia on the word of the media, condemn Syria on the word of the terrorists and sanction Iran in case they want to defend themselves but The International Court of Justice? Who cares...
Is this posted as a political injustice by the UK or an opportunity to have a go at the Tories, since it was Harold Wilson of Labour that originally sanctioned this, so surely Labour should shoulder some of the blame?
There are many examples of selective reporting by international media as well as the British media. One being apartheid in Africa. At the time there were many other African countries oppressing their population (black governments oppressing their black populations) and still are, which received relatively little media coverage. However, in the cases of Rhodesia and South Africa it was a white government suppressing the black population, so hogged most of the media attention.
jra wrote:Is this posted as a political injustice by the UK or an opportunity to have a go at the Tories, since it was Harold Wilson of Labour that originally sanctioned this, so surely Labour should shoulder some of the blame?
jra wrote:There are many examples of selective reporting by international media as well as the British media. One being apartheid in Africa. At the time there were many other African countries oppressing their population (black governments oppressing their black populations) and still are, which received relatively little media coverage. However, in the cases of Rhodesia and South Africa it was a white government suppressing the black population, so hogged most of the media attention.
jra wrote:Fletch wrote:UK Rejects International Court of Justice Opinion on the Chagos Islands
In parliament, Alan Duncan for the government has just rejected yesterday’s stunning result at the International Court of Justice, where British occupation of the Chagos Islands was found unlawful by a majority of 13 to 1, with all the judges from EU countries amongst those finding against the UK.
This represents a serious escalation in the UK’s rejection of multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the US model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law. As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice; this is utterly unprecedented.
Duncan put forward two arguments. Firstly that the ICJ opinion was “only” advisory to the General Assembly. Secondly, he argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction as the case was a bilateral dispute with Mauritius (and thus could only go before the ICJ with UK consent, which is not given).
But here Duncan is – against all British precedent and past policy – defying a ruling of the ICJ. The British government argued strenuously in the present case against ICJ jurisdiction, on just the grounds Duncan cited. The ICJ considered the UK’s arguments, together with arguments from 32 other states and from the African Union. The ICJ ruled that it did have jurisdiction, because this was not a bilateral dispute but part of the UN ordained process of decolonisation.
The International Court of Justice’s ruling on this point is given at length in paras 83 to 91 of its Opinion. This is perhaps the key section:
As stated at para 183, that the court did have jurisdiction was agreed unanimously, with even the US judge (the sole dissenter on the main question) in accord. For the British government to reject the ICJ’s unanimous ruling on jurisdiction, and quote that in parliament as the reason for not following the ICJ Opinion, is an astonishing abrogation of international law by the UK. It really is unprecedented. The repudiation of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention over Julian Assange pointed the direction the UK is drifting, but that body does not have the prestige of the International Court of Justice.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-reject ... ds/5669869
Typical reaction from the Tory government. Sanction Russia on the word of the media, condemn Syria on the word of the terrorists and sanction Iran in case they want to defend themselves but The International Court of Justice? Who cares...
Is this posted as a political injustice by the UK or an opportunity to have a go at the Tories, since it was Harold Wilson of Labour that originally sanctioned this, so surely Labour should shoulder some of the blame?
There are many examples of selective reporting by international media as well as the British media. One being apartheid in Africa. At the time there were many other African countries oppressing their population (black governments oppressing their black populations) and still are, which received relatively little media coverage. However, in the cases of Rhodesia and South Africa it was a white government suppressing the black population, so hogged most of the media attention.
Cannydc wrote:An opinion is simply not a legal ruling, it is just an opinion. In the same way that this government rejects opinions every single day, this is no different.
These people were treated shamefully, but don't expect sympathy from a Tory government. In their dictionary, sympathy sits neatly between shit and syphilis.
LordRaven wrote:Cannydc wrote:An opinion is simply not a legal ruling, it is just an opinion. In the same way that this government rejects opinions every single day, this is no different.
These people were treated shamefully, but don't expect sympathy from a Tory government. In their dictionary, sympathy sits neatly between shit and syphilis.
A phrase oft used in the forces
Cannydc wrote:LordRaven wrote:Cannydc wrote:An opinion is simply not a legal ruling, it is just an opinion. In the same way that this government rejects opinions every single day, this is no different.
These people were treated shamefully, but don't expect sympathy from a Tory government. In their dictionary, sympathy sits neatly between shit and syphilis.
A phrase oft used in the forces
And fyi, 80% of current Labour party members support Remain.
Cannydc wrote:LordRaven wrote:Cannydc wrote:An opinion is simply not a legal ruling, it is just an opinion. In the same way that this government rejects opinions every single day, this is no different.
These people were treated shamefully, but don't expect sympathy from a Tory government. In their dictionary, sympathy sits neatly between shit and syphilis.
A phrase oft used in the forces
And fyi, 80% of current Labour party members support Remain.
Guest wrote:Cannydc wrote:LordRaven wrote:Cannydc wrote:An opinion is simply not a legal ruling, it is just an opinion. In the same way that this government rejects opinions every single day, this is no different.
These people were treated shamefully, but don't expect sympathy from a Tory government. In their dictionary, sympathy sits neatly between shit and syphilis.
A phrase oft used in the forces
And fyi, 80% of current Labour party members support Remain.
Its not the labour members that are important. It is labour voters. Its no use having 400 odd thousand members albeit that number is in steady decline, if you isolate your core vote. Otherwise all you will get come election time is less than 400 thousand votes from the entriests almost exclusive conglomerated in the safe seats.
Even a A fool can even see what disasterous folly that is. You thereforeshould be able to see this?
Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests