Good God! We really are moving toward a single world government.

US law . . . is produced by a generally democratic political process

Ilya, glad you finally came around. ;-)

Treaties are not like contracts in one respect. Nations can pretty much always simply declare that they wish to end the treaty. Now this may have political, economic or even military consequences. But it's not like a contract where some entity is going to come and enforce the contract.

Even bodies like the WTO don't truly enforce their rulings. If the WTO says that the US is giving "illegal" subsidies it can't enforce this ruling and end the subsidies. All it can do is sanction retaliation by other countries.`

If the US signs a treaty in which it agrees to be bound by ICJ rulings, then it should respect ICJ rulings.

What if the United States signs a treaty that creates obligations in violation of other portions of the constitutional provisions? And especially if those violations were created after the fact, as might be the case with a future ICJ ruling? Wouldn't those necessarily go through US judicial review, and at the very least, be confirmed or denied on a case-by-case basis?

I had never heard of Thomas Buergenthal before this post--and I suspect that very few people had heard of Stephen Schwebel either (Schwebel was Buergenthal's predecessor on the ICJ).

I suspect Lior is being a bit overwrought. Frankly, other than the treaties at issue in Medellin, can anyone think of another treaty that may have a federalism issue? Anyone? And if such a tready does exist, is that treaty apparently self-executing or not?

@Elliot123: Are you really endorsing the view that the State of Texas is not obliged to follow treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate?

@anym_avey: It's pretty clear that the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution superior law to treaties. However, it does make treaties superior to State Laws. In the case at hand, the State of Texas (and hence the US) violated a treaty. The treaty specified that disputes about it will be adjudicated by the ICJ, which ruled that the US will do something. Texas claims that following the ruling would contradict its State Law (regarding post-conviction relief). That argument should be a non-starter. If treaties signed by the US (in this case an agreement to be subject to ICJ rulings in the matter of the Vienna Convention) do not supersede state law (here, when the State violated the Vienna Convention and the resulting dispute was ruled upon by the ICJ) then something has gone wrong.

@Nessuno: certainly the US will not follow an ICJ ruling which is counter to the Constitution, even if this ruling is made pursuant to a treaty the US signed. On the other hand, the Constitution expressly provides that:

"... all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As far as I can tell, and contrary to your claim, this means that Texas may not conduct its own courts separate from the treaty, as signed by the Federal Government. Perhaps you can explain where I'm reading this wrong?

I think a problem with adhering to some decisions would be that doing so would show deference to a body that is not answerable to the American people. Even if all of the members were from democratic, enlightened countries, giving deference to the court at all would erode the ability to ignore it in other cases. Our Justice system is answerable to the U.S. constitution, and the fact that several USSC justices think that they are not bound by that to me is worrisome.

Lior,

Perhaps you can explain where I'm reading this wrong?

You're not. But your original comment suggested that the US follow the ICJ automatically, in part out of a contract-like duty and in part out of an interest to make foreign countries happy.

I'm saying this is nonsense. The power of the ICJ to do damage to individual rights of and sovereignty in America is far too great.

But look, the Supreme Court majority made the very straight forward requirement (which I think you'd agree with) that if the State of Texas is going to be overruled by a treaty, then that treaty must explicitly say so with the approval of the US Senate. That's a pretty minimal requirement that was not met here.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the government had big problems in getting the states to live up to the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. From Wikipedia:"Individual States ignored Federal recommendations, under Article 5, to restore confiscated Loyalist property, and also evaded Article 6 (e.g. by confiscating Loyalist property for "unpaid debts"). Some, notably Virginia, also defied Article 4 and maintained laws against payment of debts to British creditors. Individual British soldiers ignored the provision of Article 7 about removal of slaves."

I'd guess that such problems might have formed the background for the supremacy clause, and its original intent.

What if the United States signs a treaty that creates obligations in violation of other portions of the constitutional provisions?

Reid vs Covert.

On average, however, the legal rules established by a democratic process are likely to be superior to those promulgated by the minions of repressive regimes and unrepresentative legal elites who dominate the ICJ.

This would be a good argument to make to Senators considering whether or not to ratify a particular treaty. It's application here is less clear to me.

What's the worst that could happen? A global trade war?

Actually, because of Congress's inexplicable decision to make some online gambling illegal*, it seems that Antigua will now have license to violate the copyright of US companies to the tune of $20 million. Granted, this is a terrible remedy since no US corporation should be punished for Congress's manifest stupidity but it is unclear to me what other remedy might be in order (clearly, Antigua lacks the economic power to directly penalize the US).

* I don't know if anyone will make this argument or not, but just to be clear, I believe a nation should be fully empowered to ban remote gambling within its borders (at least insofar as its WTO obligations are concerned). What is objectionable about the Safe Port Act (aside from stupid name) is that it ban allows some US firms access to the markets while freezing out foreign firms.

I'm endorsing nothing. I'm observing that no nation observes a treaty when it reaches the point where the costs outweigh the benefits.

I think it's implied in art. VI that the Senate and President can withdraw from a treaty if they believe that is the case. Continuing to be a party to a treaty that you have no intention of following undermines our credibility as a country of laws.

Elliott123,

I am not sure I agree. If the Treaty is self-executing, then the treaty has to be formally withdrawn. If the treaty is not self-executing, Congress can pass enabling legislation that states must follow pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

I suppose that if a treaty is not self-executing and Congress passed enabling legislation, Congress might subsequently repeal that legislation, which would then make the treaty unenforceable by the Courts. But I have a hard time imagining such a situation.

I agree with Tutins. The ICJ's decisions aren't meant to be directly binding on US state courts--it isn't meant to be a Super-Supreme Court. It merely identifies the US's obligations under international law. It is then the US's job to meet those obligations. The federalism issue is merely an internal one which the US has to deal with (and we have the mechanism to deal with it in the provision that Lior quoted earlier).

A decision of the ICJ that required US citizens to cease criticism of China would be no more enforceable by US authorities than if we directly entered into a treaty requiring the same action.

The lack of an effective enforcement mechanism in international law means that everyone just sort of stands around awkwardly in the wake of a violation (esp. one by the US)--but this doesn't mean that it's useless. It is in our long-term interest to ALLOW ourselves to be bound by our treaty commitments, just as it is in a businessman's interest to allow himself to be bound by his commercial contracts.

I wouldn't one would be better than the other. The point of democracy and constitutional legitimacy isn't to guarantee the optimal outcome. Nothing can do that, and there's no reason to believe that any one class of people will give better outcomes than any other other the long run. The point of people having a say in their own government is simply to ensure that people are responsible for and have only themselves to blame for their mistakes, thereby creating greater social stability than mistakes imposed on them that they have no say in.

I wouldn't dispute that. But it appears our system has found another way to stop observing a treaty when the costs outweigh the benefits.

You fail to realize the cost of dishonesty - our integrity is worth more than temporary convenience.

What's next? The President refusing to follow laws that he judges unwise instead of asking Congress to repeal them?

Also, I agree with ReaderY, and should have made it more plain in my previous post: a judge coming to the ICJ from a repressive dictatorial government will not necessarily be any less honest, any less impartial, any more biased towards his paymasters, and in general any worse a judge than one provided by a free and democratic government. He will simply have a different set of paymasters.

Admittedly, the judge from the democracy is probably less likely to be recalled and executed if his rulings annoy the government of his country of origin, and so he has more leeway to act in ways harmful to his country's interests; but again, there's no real correlation between a 'bad ruling' and a ruling supported by a repressive government, so the democratic judge may well end up using his freedom to push his own unjust agenda, as do activist judges in our very own United States...

who represent authoritarian or dubiously democratic regimes

Wasn't Somin bitching about democracy in the United States the other day? Complaining about ignorant voters thwarting his libertarian utopia?

I guess it goes to show, even for libertarians, democracy is the worst form of government, except for the alternatives.

"You fail to realize the cost of dishonesty - our integrity is worth more than temporary convenience."

Realization of dishonesty is not required to observe what has happened.

Elliott, you keep saying "the costs outweigh the benefits". What exactly are the costs to the US of living up to its Vienna Convemtion obligations?

Do you believe that notifying arrested foreigners that they may contact their consulate or embassy somehow exacts a material cost on the US?

But then treaties must be ratified by the Senate -- where every state government has (or at least, used to have) two representatives to provide a check against this kind of abuse.

This is the big problem. Senators used to be chosen by and beholding to state legislatures. When the Constitution was amended to make them popularly elected, this took away state control over treaties and gave it to self-perpetuating senators.

I’m not sure I understand the argument – how is having a US Senator elected by their State legislature who are elected by the people in the State better than having a Senator who is elected directly by the people of that State? Both of them are ultimately answerable to the same body (the electorate of their State) although the former is answerable more indirectly.

@Barry P.: I think Elliott is claiming that the "costs" of following the ICJ's ruling are too high. Those are the costs of Texas holding hearings for which it doesn't have a pre-arranged legal scheme. It's true that Texas law says that the claims in question have been defaulted. However, the law in Texas also said that the ICJ governs disputes about this treaty, and this second law supersedes the first.

I have to say that I don't understand the problem the US people have with the situation. I completely agree that submitting yourself to the authority of the ICJ (which is a dangerous, political entity) is stupid. But the remedy for this was for the US to not to sign and ratify the following: (option protocol, article I)

Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.

The US having signed this protocol, and the Senate having ratified it, it's disingenuous to claim (like the Supreme Court) that additional "enabling" legislation by Congress is needed for this to apply. If Congress is required to pass a specific law saying "The several States shall be bound by the terms of treaty X" whenver the US signs a treaty, then what's the point of (1) saying that treaties are the supreme law of the land when Federal Law already is, and (2) vesting treaty ratification authority in the Senate, as opposed to Congress as a whole?

Congress doesn't have to pass the law everytime the US signs a treaty - only when the language of that particular treaty does not indicate that it is self-executing. If, for example, the Protocol specifically said that the decisions of the ICJ would be binding in the courts of any signatory, then we have an argument that the treaty is self-executing. No enabling legislation would be necessary, but we don't have that here.

The treaty did say that the signatories would "undertake to comply" with the ICJ's decisions. There is disagreement as to the precise effect of these words, but the bottom line is that the treaty could have said that signatories would simply comply. "Undertake to comply" does seem to contemplate situtations in which a party undertakes to comply but does not actually comply.

The option of non-self-executing treaties is useful, I think, in that it probably encourages participation in these sorts of international arrangements. If, for example, this were a clearly self-executing treaty and, as a result, all signatories were bound by the ICJ decisions, how many countries would participate? My guess is probably not too many. The treaty's existence in a non-self-executing form probably fosters the participation of more nations by allowing them to air grievances and have a (theoretically) neutral party weigh in on them without running the risks catalogued so thoroughly in prior posts. Maybe this is a good thing, maybe it is bad, but my guess is that now, even though the underlying ICJ decision is not binding, states will probably pay more attention to giving people like Medillin a chance to contact their consulate.

On average, however, the legal rules established by a democratic process are likely to be superior to those promulgated by the minions of repressive regimes and unrepresentative legal elites who dominate the ICJ.

Minor nitpick: the important issue is not the goodness of any given legal rule, but rather the legitimacy of the rules in question. Citizens of a sovereign nation have an expectation that their state will vigorously defend its own sovereignty, including the assertion of the state's right to hold ultimate legal dominion over its own populace. Rules imposed on the citizens of a sovereign nation by international consensus have less legitimacy than those imposed on the citizens by some domestic dictator, whose rules hold less legitimacy than those created via democratic process.

Having said that, I think Ilya's statement turns out to be generally true, so I'll put away my Voeglin before I get into the full blown rant...

One should note quite a few of those ICJ judges from repressive and authoritarian countries were educated in America and England.

So was Stephen Reinhardt. What's your point?

It's pretty clear that the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution superior law to treaties.

Although I am of the view that the Constitution trumps a treaty, nothing in the Supremacy Clause states explicitly that this is the case.

special rights for any minority with a grudge while Christians are silenced and deprived of their basic rights

I have every confidence you'll somehow manage to survive the oppression inflicted on Christians in this country. We're pretty much one step away from being thrown to the lions, aren't we?

To borrow a line from Jon Stewart, I too dream of the day when a Christian can be elected President. Maybe even 43 of them in a row.

Prof. Somin,

You may certainly like or dislike the Supreme Court's Medellin decision, or like or dislike international law as such. I must say, however, that I find your disparaging remakrs about Judge Buergenthal to be absolutely shameful. It is certainly true that the average American has no idea who he is, but I can assure you that the average American also hasn't got a clue about the justices of the US Supreme Court. Since when has public notoriety been a prerequisite for a judicial function?

It may moreover be true that the average American lawyer has no idea who Judge Buergenthal is, but I can again assure you that every American lawyer who has ever done anything in the field of international law knows very well who he is. I, for my part, have no idea who is the most prominent tax laywer in America, as I have never had the pleasure of practising US tax law, but that doesn't mean that this person is deserving of any less respect.

As for Judge Buergenthal, I would only say that it is at the least in very poor taste to speak of someone disparagingly if you yourself are not in the same league. You have written one article about international law, which is at that clearly motivated by your own policy agenda, while he has written hundreds. He has been a professor at top US law schools for over forty years, a judge on three international courts, and he is the president emeritus of the American Society of International Law. He is moreover a man who achieved all this after untold adversity, as he himself survived Auschwitz when he was but a child. If the American people or American lawyers don't know more about him, it is to their shame, not his.

Finally, as to your substantive point about judges from undemocratic countries serving on international tribunals -- unfortunately, in the world in which we live in, that is the only possible way that an international system can work. There is no working alternative to the sovereign equality of states - if there was one, it would already have been attempted. It is entirely up to the United States to choose whether it wishes to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICJ or to that of any other international tribunal. It has done so, of its own free will, and its acceptance of the ICJ's jurisdiction was done by its own democratically elected representatives.

Aren't cases submitted to the ICJ only by mutual consent of the parties?

In other words, does it change the analysis to take into account the fact that the United States wasn't dragged before the ICJ, but rather agreed to submit this dispute to the court...?

This is all irrelevant if I've forgotten my international law, but if I'm right then it seems to me that this is an many of the complaints about the ICJ.

Int lawyer, here in America we criticise our betters all the time; it's called 'popular sovereignty' and it's a major reason why our 'betters', bad as they are, are better than most other places' 'betters'.

SHOULD THE UNITED STATES OBEY THE DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE?

No. Period. End of sentence.

here in America we criticise our betters all the time; it's called 'popular sovereignty' and it's a major reason why our 'betters', bad as they are, are better than most other places' 'betters'.

Ah yes. Criticizing someone for not being famous is very useful. Maybe if Buergenthal went on some sort of reality show that would make him better qualified for his job. Or maybe we could appoint Paris Hilton in his place.

I think appointing Paris Hilton might better reflect some people's respect for the ICJ. However, I took the statement not to be an indictment of the judge in question, but just to show how little review he got when he was appointed. Justice Thomas, for instance, is well known because of the intensity of his confirmation process, because people feel SCOTUS exerts incredible power. The fact that no one follows the ICJ appointment proceedings is merely a statement on the publics interpretation of the power the ICJ wields.

Klerk, I don't think your objections stand close scruitiny. First, the political nature of the ICJ means it does attempt to enforce rights equally across states. It is perfectly possible for the judges from authoritarian regimes to band together and hold democracies to a higher standard than their own countries. In other words, the "miniumum set of rights" is not consistant across all countries.

Second, and more troubling, is that this "minimum set of rights" seems to be growing, and in ways that conflict with our Constitutional system in the US. The best example is the death penalty--many other states regard it as an offense against this minimum set of rights. We do not. If we accept the international community's judgments issued through the ICJ we will eventually find ourselves having to conform to "minimum" right protections our population does not agree with. It begins with the death penalty and expands from there into speech restrictions, firearm restrictions, etc.

I have a serious difficulty following the logical flow of the arguments of both Somin and some of the comments. First, Somin's main argument against respecting ICJ decisions fundamentally amounts to name-calling. If origin in countries with totalitarian regimes is a disqualifying factor, than we should immediately disqualify Somin from passing judgment because he originated from one such country. On the other hand, if being a part of some vaguely defined "elite" from a "democratic country" is somehow disqualifying, than, following Pat Buchanan, we should also disqualify Somin on these grounds because he belongs to an intellectual elite.

But Somin's argument doesn't hold water for another reason. He bases his analysis on the idea that judges that come from particular countries must represent those countries' interests and ideals in their judgment. But this is nonsense! Read the statute of the ICJ. If anything, these judges are less likely to be influenced by personal considerations than W's bench appointees. How does their passing judgment undermine democratic principles?

I can go on, but what's the point? It's not possible to argue with those who have made up their minds prenatally.

L.S.,

I think part of the confusion with the original post is caused by prof. Somin using "better" when he means "more legitimate". None of which explains, though, why the US should not carry out its freely adopted obligations under international law.

Underlying many of these comments is this basic problem -- one which bothers me as well. On the one hand, yes the US should abide by its international obligations and to treaties it has signed. As a general principle, that is hard to argue with. On the other hand, the ICJ, like so many international organizations, is in practice far from the ideal embodied in the agreement itself. Again and again, citizens in the US are disillusioned because the concepts in those treaties are perverted or ignored. Just one phrase: the UN Commission on Human Rights. To disclose a potential bias, I share that disillusionment. I read, for example, the UN Charter and cannot but help admire the ideas behind it and then look at the actual operation of the UN and find it horrific.

Unless and until the US confidence in international institutions is restored, there will be a significant resistance to trusting them enough not to reserve the right to review each event, vote, or decision independently.

Lior:

"... all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As far as I can tell, and contrary to your claim, this means that Texas may not conduct its own courts separate from the treaty, as signed by the Federal Government. Perhaps you can explain where I'm reading this wrong?

All treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...

"The United States" does not have authority over ordinary criminal justice in Texas. If a treaty is not made under the authority of the US, it is not be the supreme Law of the land.

Well, what if the question is rephrased: "Should the US fulfill the international obligations that it voluntarily undertakes?"

And if the answer to that is "No," then the further question has to be asked: "Why should the US then expect any other country to fulfill its obligations"

No, and we shouldn't. If anything, the US should get out of the UN, and other entangling alliances. The Federal government has no business entering into these relationships even if they are "Constitutional". I put that word in quotes because as we know that which is "Constitutional" is what 5 Justices say it is, regardless of the language in the Constitution.

Not necessarily realistic, but a worthy goal, IMHO.

Question: Constitutionality of any external body having any control of legal processes within the Union? Not within the textual content of the Constitution concerning the judicial branch.

Question: Adhere to the ICJ if the US agrees in a treaty? Unconstitutional. The US cannot agree to any treaty that does not fall within the authority of the US and no authority has been granted in the Constitution (which contains each and every granted authority of the federal government) for the US to sign such a treaty.

Of course we know that not even our own courts adhere to anything closely resembling the Constitution as written.

He bases his analysis on the idea that judges that come from particular countries must represent those countries' interests and ideals in their judgment. But this is nonsense! Read the statute of the ICJ.

Yes, a priestly class of saints that will always disregard their personal biases. Because the ICJ statute requires it!

Our Justice system is answerable to the U.S. constitution, and the fact that several USSC justices think that they are not bound by that to me is worrisome.

Great quote - right on!!

"The United States" does not have authority over ordinary criminal justice in Texas. If a treaty is not made under the authority of the US, it is not be the supreme Law of the land.

The US cannot agree to any treaty that does not fall within the authority of the US and no authority has been granted in the Constitution (which contains each and every granted authority of the federal government) for the US to sign such a treaty.

The treatment of foreign nationals by the States (for instance) is a foreign policy decision - not an 'ordinary criminal justice' decision and pretty clearly in the realm in which Congress may legislate. Seein Reid v. Covert for some general rules on how the treaty power is interpreted (Reid shot down a treaty insofar as it abridged the rights of an American citizen - a good decision).

Horatio - while I respect your opinion on the matter of the UN and ICJ (etc...), you might also consider that The People of the United States, acting through their esteemed Senators, have spoken otherwise.

Also, I don't think it was ever a serious option to have interrogations that do not follow Vienna suppressed.

Lior - You may not have noticed, but the Court pointed out that no other country in the world accepts ICJ decisions as binding on the courts of that country. The only remedy for ICJ decisions is through the UN Security Council. (This part of the decision was accepted by Justice Stevens, too, by the way.) Why do you think the US should be the only country in the world to accept ICJ decisions as binding on its internal courts?

Oren - I would have no problem if the US Congress were to pass implementing legislation requiring local police to respect the wishes of foreign nationals who, upon arrest, say "I'm a Citizen of XYZ Country and I want to talk to my consulate." Of course, that wouldn't have helped Medellin, who apparently was an illegal alien anxious to avoid deportation. It's a bit of a stretch, though, to interpret the Vienna Convention as requiring local police to inquire into the citizenship status of arrestees. I wouldn't automatically throw out convictions if the police interrogated arrestees before letting them see their consuls, either, since so far as I know no other country in the world would exclude a confession obtained under like circumstances.

I wouldn't automatically throw out convictions if the police interrogated arrestees before letting them see their consuls, either, since so far as I know no other country in the world would exclude a confession obtained under like circumstances.

And if every other country in the world jumped off a cliff, should we do it too?

Interestingly, Ilya does not suggest that we completely withdraw from the ICJ. Since we've already withdrawn from compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, we're subject to ICJ jurisdiction only in those cases where we expressly consent to it. What is the point of remaining on the Court if we're going to go beyond that ignore its decisions even in those cases where we've consented to jurisdiction unless they rule in our favor? Is there any better way of making a mockery of America's commitment to its treaty obligations?

"What is the point of remaining on the Court if we're going to go beyond that ignore its decisions even in those cases where we've consented to jurisdiction unless they rule in our favor? Is there any better way of making a mockery of America's commitment to its treaty obligations?"

Well, if none of the signatories accepts the ICJ decisions as binding on its domestic courts, I'd suggest the point is to provide a harmless exercise in feeling good about ourselves and our cooperation with the international community.

I’m not saying that I agree with the President single-handedly ordering Texas to comply in the absence of a statute or a treaty that is explicitly self-executing but

But, but that is the entire point of this ruling.

L.S.,

Nicaragua v. United States, anyone? (cf. wikipedia page on that case)

I think the really amsuing thing here is how simple it would have been for Texas to say, ok, we'll reconsider the case.

Ten minute hearing: harmless beyond a reasonable doubt --> Medellin goes back to death row.

The ICJ sucks and is ruining this blog.

An undemocratic body cannot lead to democratic results.

Tell it to General MacArthur.

I stand by that position, Mark: An undemocratic body cannot lead to democratic results. The decisions of the body may seem wise, may seem good, may even seem to promote the power of the people. But without the necessary grant of authority from the people in the first place all those results are a democratic eyewash on an authoritarian charade.

Ok, but your position is demonstrably wrong. There are, literally, hundreds of examples to the contrary, many of them (naturally) related to race.

I'll add that the American judiciary qualifies under your standard. Here's Madison in Federalist 39: “Even the judges … will … be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves[;] the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard… The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior.”

L.S.,

@Blue: How is that different from a court that is created by a treaty that is negotiated by a democratically elected president and ratified by a supermajority in a democratically elected Senate?

Mark, what are you not understanding? Of course the judicary in the US is a democratic body because it appointed and approved by democratic organs (or in some cases directly by the voters in the case of state judges who run directly for their positions). Thus the rulings of the US judiciary are democratic, they possess the necessary link to a grant of soverignity from the people to the state.

While I agree with this, I now don't understand your reaction to my example of the judiciary and whites-only primaries. Perhaps we're actually in agreement.

The ICJ makes decisions based on international law. International law is the law between nations. It is not the law of some non-existent one-world government, nor is it a proposal to make uniform each nation's domestic laws.

Ah, but the ICJ will - with small steps at first - begin to preempt the Constitution and meddle in the internal affairs of the hated U.S. Just as the UN's Human Rights Commission and IPCC are doing right now. And make no mistake: these people absolutely crave a one-world government -- with the U.S. in their thumbscrews.

Anyone who thinks they don't is no student of human nature. Just read the bloated text of the EU constitution treaty to see how the same unaccountable autocrats intend to micromanage every possible facet of the existence of the serfs residing under their bureaucratic control.

We would be nuts to hand our head on a platter to anyone outside our borders.

It is important to remember what the ICJ is and what it is not.

Despite its name, for many purposes it is not a court at all but an arbitral tribunal - not least because an essential characteristic of a court is that it must have the means of enforcing its judgments. If two states decide to submit a dispute (eg as to the delineation of their frontiers) that is surely preferable than going to war about it. But, since the Court lacks enforcement powers, the judgment is declaratory and the losing state might still refuse to give effect to the judgment. International opprobrium is the only conseqence.

As the Supreme Court said, if the USA fails to implement its treaty obligation in the domestic arena, the Court is entitled to say so, and other nations can take a view of US default.

After all, if you are the big kind on the block you can ignore a whole host of international law obligations and get away with it for a time.

A good example is "extraordinary rendition". Hopefully the perpetrators will one day be brought to justice if not before the US courts, then elsewhere - or at least be confined to the territory of the state responsible for condoning their acts.

I wonder whether the USA will ever be called upon to invoke the "Hague Invasion Act" to rescue a US citizen charged with a war crime and whether the administration then in power will do so.