International Court Of Justice Quotes
Prior to that the accepted phrase was “Law of Nations,” but soon after Bentham first used “International Law” it caught on and became widespread in the English Language. See Columbia Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1905
There is no court structure that handles International law disputes. There are some international bodies that hear some types of international law disputes, but no general mechanism. The procedures of these few bodies are very complex and arcane. But worse, there is no body with any power that can enforce any decision that may be reached. Enforcement depends on the good will of the nations involved or the pressure that can be brought to bear by other counties.
There is a school of thought that argues that American courts should NEVER look at the opinions of foreign courts. They argue that our legal system is determined by the Constitution and American Laws as well as the English Common Law. They believe that no consideration or weight should by given to court opinions even from Canada or Australia. Most jurists agree with Breyer. Foreign legal precedents should be examined to see what might be learned but should not be determinatitive.
This was one of the early efforts to have a World Court, but it failed at the time. However, eventually the idea was accepted, although the jurisdiction of the Word Court has been very limited.
Individual countries are bound only by the treaties and compacts that they have signed and ratified. So very often someone will allege that a country has violated international law, but that nation may not have signed the Treaty or Compact that binds them, so thy may not be in violation at all whereas some other country in similar circumstances would be. Also, many countries (including the United States) sign treaties but take exception to some of the provisions. Then there are not bound by that provision. This is what makes International Law so complicated and difficult to understand.
This quotation has special historical significance in American political history. Conservative President Warren G. Harding first suggested that the United States join and recognize the authority of the International Court. Then Herbert Hoover, a Republican icon after his term of office, in his Inaugural Address, advocated the Court. However, many of his own party and some Democrats were opposed to the U. S. recognizing any international court. So Hoover bucked the leadership of his own party. The FDR administration in 1935 signed the protocol, but it was never ratified by the two thirds of the Senate that was needed to become American law. In the beginning of the 21st century, the Republican was rabidly in opposition to any International or world court even though Hoover and Harding were all for it.
It is a huge surprise for modern Republicans to discover that the great Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, advocated strengthening the power of the World Court. 21st century Most Republicans consider this court and other international tribunals to be infringements on American sovereignty, and politicians who agree with Roosevelt as traitors.
