Mexico is a shithole country. What do they know bout keeping folk safe?
Mexico is a shithole country. What do they know bout keeping folk safe?
This has got to be post of the year!Maybe the Mexicans should go back to mexico where it's safe.
The early reports were saying that 6 Mexican citizens were shot, but only three fatally. There are plenty of Mexican nationals who legally cross the border everyday to work or shop. I don't know what kinds of papers are required.Has anyone seen an actual count of how many victims are American citizens? I know hispanic people in El Paso and they are not illegal aliens. This idiot assumes everyone he randomly shoots in an El Paso Walmart are illegals, or did I miss something?
Mexican president sponsored by Soros putting pressure on Trump for gun control.
Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed.
"Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and so instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior or inferior against another. Therefore, there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, the absence of binding force means that the 193 member states of the ICJ do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, membership in the UN and ICJ does not give the court automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it is the consent of each state to follow the jurisdiction that matters.
The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound. Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council to avoid the legal responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States.
Enter your email address to join: