The Instigator
vakeelss
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

improper jurisdiction of icj

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,407 times Debate No: 22301
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

vakeelss

Pro

Do you think International Court Of Justice exercises its jurisdiction arbitrarily ?
For me, it does on its assumption theory that it can assume its jurisdiction even though a state is its member or not .
In other words -Do you see political dominance and its role beyond ?
I feel ICJ is arbitrary in its exercise.
larztheloser

Con

I thank my opponent for inviting me to have this debate. I will be taking the stance that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is justified, as opposed to arbritary, in its jurisdiction. This is a complex issue because the ICJ has two, quite unrelated jurisdictions (http://www.icj-cij.org...).

The first jurisdiction is known as "advisory jurisdiction" - essentially the UN or one of the UN's friends asks the judges for advice. The court will seek information on the subject from anybody or any agency that might have something to say on the topic, and then consider all of these viewpoints under the framework of international law, before giving a verdict. These verdicts are non-binding - people are free to ignore them if they wish - however, they carry great moral authority because of the respect for the members of the ICJ in the international community (http://www.icj-cij.org...).

In exercising the power of advisory jurisdiction, the justices are doing no more for the UN (or one of their friends) than a management consultancy firm does for a business. They are looking at the facts objectively and giving their legal opinion, just like every lawyer in the world does. There's nothing arbritary or improper about this - it is a normal, commonly accepted practice, protected by the rights of freedom of speech.

The second jurisdiction is known as contentious jurisdiction. If Germany wanted to sue the United States over their use of the name "Hamburger", because they feel they are degrading to the people who live in Hamburg, then they would go to the ICJ, who would judge the case using international law. This service is only for governments suing other governments - the ICJ does not get involved with individuals or other legal entities (so don't confuse it with the international criminal court!). Only states that AGREE to be bound by the jurisdiction of the ICJ are bound by it - both parties in the lawsuit must give their consent. If the USA was to say "we don't recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ," then Germany would be out of luck. (http://www.icj-cij.org...). In other words - the court CANNOT exercise ANY jurisdiction over non-member nations. For instance in the case of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia v NATO, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia when the case was filed, and thus passed no verdict.

If you and I were to sign a contract that Judge Judy will resolve our dispute, then her jurisdiction over us is not arbritary or unfounded. It is not arbritary because she will judge us based on the law (because she's a judge) and it's not unfounded because we both consented to her jurisdiction. The same is true for the ICJ. When two states give their consent to be bound by it, it is this consent that makes the rulings valid.

This is not political dominance. This is voluntary submission that states can pull out of at any time - in Nicuragua vs United States (http://en.wikipedia.org...) the USA even pulled out AFTER the verdict had been delivered so they don't have to pay reparations.

The burden of proof is on my opponent. He must show why the ICJ is arbritary or improper in its jurisdiction. I wish him the best of luck for this enterprise.
Debate Round No. 1
vakeelss

Pro

vakeelss forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Con

I await my opponent meeting his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
vakeelss

Pro

vakeelss forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Con

Still waiting.
Debate Round No. 3
vakeelss

Pro

vakeelss forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Con

I'm very patient, aren't I?
Debate Round No. 4
vakeelss

Pro

vakeelss forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Con

Well, that was lame...
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vakeelss 5 years ago
vakeelss
I am waiting, my friend.
Posted by vakeelss 5 years ago
vakeelss
Most welcome friend.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Thank you. I will accept in a day or two so I have time to do some reading.
Posted by vakeelss 5 years ago
vakeelss
Amended as you said
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
I'd be happy to, but you need to make that the topic of the debate. If the topic was "The ICJ has no jurisdiction" or something like that you'd be fine. Just edit the debate and I'll accept.
Posted by vakeelss 5 years ago
vakeelss
Well, you just go with icj..
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Could you please clarify that in the resolution? Right now you've made me con the ICJ and its jurisdiction, meaning I argue against the ICJ and its jurisdiction. If anything I should be pro, and perhaps a better resolution would be "The ICJ is not arbitrary in its jurisdiction". Sorry to be nitpicky, I've done a debate on this before and it fell apart for this reason.
Posted by vakeelss 5 years ago
vakeelss
I request you to research and cite. We have one week time. This is extremely sensitive issue.
Posted by vakeelss 5 years ago
vakeelss
On the opposite..
I want you to prove that ICJ is not arbitrary in its jurisdiction.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Just to clarify - you want me to argue that the ICJ should not have any jurisdiction?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
vakeelsslarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
vakeelsslarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
vakeelsslarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct, arguments, and sources for Pro's forfeit.