FW: Legality of Assassinations
ricenter at igc.org
Sat Aug 27 09:57:20 PDT 2005
Prof. Sheridan wrote in relevant part:
>The U.S. refused to agree that
> the World Court could have its jurisdiction extended, again as far as I
> understand and I haven't been looking at this area, to cover U.S.
> military activities, for the reason that we'd be hauled into a hostile
> forum by hostile parties, etc.
COMMENT: As I recall, that was not the U.S.' argument. The U.S. argued
that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over customary international law
claims. The ICJ rejected that argument. Furthermore, the major purpose of
international tribunals is to ensure pacific resolutions of disputes so
that war does not result.
> The problem for the president is that if he takes the chance of acting
> illegally, he and his top leaders might find themselves hauled before
> the ICJ as Milosevic is, charged with, if not war crimes then some other
> crime against the international order or humanity, as Germany was at
> Nuremburg. What's protects against that is that the U.S. is currently
> as strong as it appears to be against other nations.
COMMENT: I think that you meant the ICT not the ICJ.
Francisco Forrest Martin
More information about the Conlawprof