International Dispute Resolution Quotes
This Government Instruction to British North African Consular Personnel summarized the policies of the British government with regard to British citizens who run afoul of the law while in Morocco and other North African countries. Essentially, the British almost always insisted on a treaty with the foreign governments that gave jurisdiction to the British Counsul to try any Englishman who was accused of a crime. The national government could not put a British Subject on trial of punish him regardless of the crime. Where local people were the victim of the alleged crime, the national government could send an observer to the trial that the British consul held. To many, this was arrogant and insulting to the host governments. As high handed as it seems, there were and still are great problems with differing concepts of justice, different rights protected and different levels of corruption. In many countries “important” local officials can control or influence the decisions of courts, witnesses can be easily bribed lie, and even judges can readily be bought. Even today, the issue of criminal jurisdiction is one of the most important subjects of negotiations between nations. The United States has similar agreements with Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, Japan and other nations where we have armed forces. Generally, the better and more sophisticated and honest the host government justice system is, the more willing modern nations are to allow them jurisdiction over criminal matters. But generally, in the world today, these treaties are the exception. Most criminal jurisdiction is with the national government where the alleged crime takes place.
The Senate refused to ratify.
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.
Ingersoll was considered to be the greatest orator and political thinker of his day, but his overt atheistic views curtailed his elected political career. Ever since the founding of our republic, the concept of a World Court has been polarizing. In the early days of the nation, many Americans did not trust the more powerful European states to be fair. When we became the most powerful state, many of us didn’t trust the weaker nations to be fair and maintain our standards of law.
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.
Ironically, by the 21st century, the Republican Party had moved so far to the right that it rejected the earlier Republican position on the International Courts and opposed American participation. Many Republicans of that era are amazed that Republicans endorsed American participation in an International Court ever.
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.
