Sandra Day O'Connor Quotes

If we say the Geneva Convention is obsolete, then what do others who have our soldiers say?

Each one of these treaties is a step for the maintenance of peace, an additional guarantee against war. It is through such machinery that the disputes between nations will be settled and war prevented.

International treaties have escape clauses. If you don’t like the way its going, you give the requisite notice, and you get out.

We both permit and desire that the laws of foreign nations shall be studied for the sake of the useful knowledge that may be obtained from them, but we reject and prohibit their employment in the business of the courts.

If a treaty serves its turn for ten or twenty years, the wisdom of its framers is sufficiently confirmed.

Rules of conduct which govern men in their relations to one another are being applied in an ever-increasing degree to nations. The battlefield as a place of settlement of disputes is gradually yielding to arbitral courts of justice.

We [with Shindzo Abe] should understand that the results of that terrible tragedy of the 20th century, namely World War II, are enshrined in corresponding international documents, and finding a way to settle all disputes without destroying the entire foundation of international law that evolved as a result of World War II is a highly delicate task. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that we cannot second-guess the course, let alone the outcome of our negotiations.

We do not agree with policies that would lead to attempts at easing sanctions or lifting them and returning to business as usual with Russia. We believe that such behaviour will only embolden the aggressive behavior of Russia, as the last 12 years have shown, starting with Russia's attack on Georgia in 2008.

No one shall take a military action on the Korean Peninsula without South Korean consent.

It is vital that people are aware of what the Foreign Office can and can't do.

A precedent provides legal authority for an action precisely because it occurred before.

I think justices of all stripes agree that stare decisis is important, but not an inextricable command. It's not inflexible; it's not absolute.

Both Poland and Canada should be advocates of long-'lasting, peaceful solutions in eastern Ukraine, based on unconditional respect of international law.

Paradigm shifts, particularly in diplomacy and security issues, are, by definition, major undertakings.

Extradition treaties date back at least to 1259 B.C., when the Hittite King Hattusili the Third and Ramesses the Second signed a treaty of 'peace and brotherhood for all time.' They have become more commonplace as international travel has become easier and sensibly streamlined.

In a system of precedent, the new majority bears the weight of explaining why the constitutional vision of their predecessors was flawed and of making the case as to why theirs better captures the meaning of our fundamental law.

I would not want to leave the impression that I would give some precedents more weight than others because of some sort of academic disagreement.

We must apply the same standards to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt that we apply to Iran, Russia and Syria.

The Iranian regime should know that we will hold them accountable for any actions that their Shia militias take in Iraq.

Bilaterals are like building blocks for multilaterals.

The Government of India should take all political parties into confidence before arriving at an agreement with Pakistan.

I can make a joke pointing out that David Cameron told off Sri Lanka for human rights abuses committed with weapons Britain sold it - like Ronald McDonald calling you a fat bastard.

It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for you to get along in the republic of the United States. Now, if Kansas and Colorado have a quarrel over a watershed they don't call out the national guard in each state and go to war over it. They bring suit in the Supreme Court and abide by its decision. There isn't a reason in the world why we can't do that internationally.

We have a much bigger objective. We've got to look at the long run here. This is an example - the situation between the United Nations and Iraq - where the United Nations is deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign nation.... Now this is a marvelous precedent (to be used in) all countries of the world.

Well, they really didn't have to worry, because the way power politics works, the World Court can't do anything. Look, there's one country in the world at the moment which has refused to accept World Court decision-that's the United States. Is anybody going to do anything about it?