Rand Paul Moves to Cut U.S. Aid to the Palestinians Over ICC Bid
- Thread starter Jroc
- Start date
theliq
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #62
R U Simple OR WHAT
Serious question - Whites were slave owners, and blacks were slaves. When Lincoln freed the slaves White had to work their own lands, then all of a sudden blacks gained even more freedom in the 60's, but decided to be lazy like the white plantation owners by taking advantage of the white workers who pay for their benefits? Quite Ironic isn't it?
Judicial review
Gold Member
- Banned
- #63
R U Simple OR WHAT
Serious question - Whites were slave owners, and blacks were slaves. When Lincoln freed the slaves White had to work their own lands, then all of a sudden blacks gained even more freedom in the 60's, but decided to be lazy like the white plantation owners by taking advantage of the white workers who pay for their benefits? Quite Ironic isn't it?
If I can solve an argument that's been going on for 65 years that simply I must be a genius.
theliq
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #64
Ho,Ho...America are NO GREAT SHAKES in much these days........except as LAP DOGS TO ISRAEL..WHY?International criminal court is a farce which is why we are not a member..... the entire U.N. is as well for that matterWhy is that a bad thing?
Damn U.N...we should stop funding them as well
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...ast/ap-un-palestinians-israel-court.html?_r=0
R U Simple OR WHAT
Serious question - Whites were slave owners, and blacks were slaves. When Lincoln freed the slaves White had to work their own lands, then all of a sudden blacks gained even more freedom in the 60's, but decided to be lazy like the white plantation owners by taking advantage of the white workers who pay for their benefits? Quite Ironic isn't it?
If I can solve an argument that's been going on for 65 years that simply I must be a genius.
You surely must be..steve
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
The International Criminal Court (ICC) operates on a "state-based system;" which means in effect that if the ICC accepts Palestine as a member, that the ICC also recognizes Palestine as a "State." This is important to not, in that in 2009, the ICC did not recognize Palestine as a "state" and thus would not accept it as a signatory member.
In the few weeks between December 08 and February 09, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) (Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo) received over 300 informal partitions from
Palestinian groups, demanding an investigation of the events surrounding "Operation Cast Lead." Initially the ICC OTP took the position that it had no jurisdiction over Israel, as a non-signatory to the Court's statute, after political pressure from the Palestinian Authority coerced the court into reversing it decision --- invoking Article 12.
In January 09, the Palestinian National Authority lodged a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to acts committed on the territory of the Palestinian Authority since 1 July, 2002; the date in which the ICC internationally assumed to hold jurisdiction over war crimes and other offenses committed after the Rome Statute )statutes brought into force). However, a formal determination had not yet been made concerning the question as to whether a Palestinian state, qualified to accept ICC jurisdiction under Article 12 (Clause 3) actually existed.
It is important to note that the September 1948 "All Palestine Government" (APG) was never really accepted. The APG claim was contradicted by the “First Palestinian Congress" (AKA: Amman Congress):
The APG was dissolved by Egypt in 1959. No such government existed after 1959 in any form.
The meaning of Palestine, expressed in the Resolution 181(II) is the same as the meaning of Palestine in the very first Palestine Order in Council (meaning the territory to which the Mandate Applies). This was made plain in the expressed intent when the Successor Government was announced.
R
The International Criminal Court (ICC) operates on a "state-based system;" which means in effect that if the ICC accepts Palestine as a member, that the ICC also recognizes Palestine as a "State." This is important to not, in that in 2009, the ICC did not recognize Palestine as a "state" and thus would not accept it as a signatory member.
In the few weeks between December 08 and February 09, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) (Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo) received over 300 informal partitions from
Palestinian groups, demanding an investigation of the events surrounding "Operation Cast Lead." Initially the ICC OTP took the position that it had no jurisdiction over Israel, as a non-signatory to the Court's statute, after political pressure from the Palestinian Authority coerced the court into reversing it decision --- invoking Article 12.
In January 09, the Palestinian National Authority lodged a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to acts committed on the territory of the Palestinian Authority since 1 July, 2002; the date in which the ICC internationally assumed to hold jurisdiction over war crimes and other offenses committed after the Rome Statute )statutes brought into force). However, a formal determination had not yet been made concerning the question as to whether a Palestinian state, qualified to accept ICC jurisdiction under Article 12 (Clause 3) actually existed.
(COMMENT)
It is important to note that the September 1948 "All Palestine Government" (APG) was never really accepted. The APG claim was contradicted by the “First Palestinian Congress" (AKA: Amman Congress):
On September 22, 1948, the All-Palestine Government was established in Gaza captured by Egypt, and on September 30, the rival First Palestinian Congress, which promptly denounced the Gaza "government", was convened in Amman.
Related Topics:
All-Palestine Government - First Palestinian Congress -Amman
Related Topics:
All-Palestine Government - First Palestinian Congress -Amman
The APG was dissolved by Egypt in 1959. No such government existed after 1959 in any form.
The meaning of Palestine, expressed in the Resolution 181(II) is the same as the meaning of Palestine in the very first Palestine Order in Council (meaning the territory to which the Mandate Applies). This was made plain in the expressed intent when the Successor Government was announced.
"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
Most Respectfully,"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
R
Last edited:
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,265
- 15,810
- 2,210
Ho,Ho...America are NO GREAT SHAKES in much these days........except as LAP DOGS TO ISRAEL..WHY?International criminal court is a farce which is why we are not a member..... the entire U.N. is as well for that matterWhy is that a bad thing?
Damn U.N...we should stop funding them as well
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...ast/ap-un-palestinians-israel-court.html?_r=0
R U Simple OR WHAT
Serious question - Whites were slave owners, and blacks were slaves. When Lincoln freed the slaves White had to work their own lands, then all of a sudden blacks gained even more freedom in the 60's, but decided to be lazy like the white plantation owners by taking advantage of the white workers who pay for their benefits? Quite Ironic isn't it?
If I can solve an argument that's been going on for 65 years that simply I must be a genius.
You surely must be..steve
I wonder why as well, is it the money, no I think its more than that. Too me its looks more like "Fear". It appears to be a lot like blackmail as well they way our Pol's suck up. We know that those who do not suck up, only end up taking up space in Wash with no mouth.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,424
- 4,883
- 1,815
You are leaving out a few points.
A state exists separate from recognition by other states.
A state does not cease to exist while occupied.
People in non self governing territories have the inalienable right:
To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.
BTW, what is a "legal entity?"
Again with this usual shit ? It has nothing to do with what Rocco posted.
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,226
- 20,393
- 2,250
Who's we? You and your Mooooslem Jihadi friends? Vast majority of Americans overwhelmingly support Israel.
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,226
- 20,393
- 2,250
Does that include murdering and slaughtering civilians residing in a neighboring country?
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,226
- 20,393
- 2,250
He never has anything. It's either lies or diversionary tactics.
Poor Tumor, still can't tell us exactly when it was that Palestine became a country that Israel is now occupying.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,424
- 4,883
- 1,815
Like Israel's attack on Lebanon in 2006?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,424
- 4,883
- 1,815
You don't know how true that is.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
This is my point exactly.
Point #1: A state exists separate from recognition by other states.
Point #2: A state does not cease to exist while occupied.
Point #3: People in non self governing territories have the inalienable right:
Point #4: "BTW, what is a "legal entity?" ----
Most Respectfully,
R
This is my point exactly.
(COMMENT)
Point #1: A state exists separate from recognition by other states.
What does this mean? It means nothing if it is not recognized. It sounds great, but to be a "State" --- it must have some "capacity." There is no one international document that expresses the meaning of a "state" in its total form. The two most commonly accepted meanings are expressed in:
Article 1: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933; (AKA: Montevideo Convention)
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Excerpt --- Opinion No. 1 of the Arbitration Committee, Badinter Arbitration Committee 3EJIL(1992)178
Together, these legal frameworks are not contradictory. In effect they both agree that a characteristic of a "state" is a government with the capacity to enter into relations with other states." (I use the Montevideo Convention language because it is simpler - yet not all encompassing.) It makes the point that in order for a Palestinian State to exist, the Palestinians needed to have this capacity. And just as clearly, this capacity did not exist for the Palestinians until after 1988.1) The Committee considers:
a) that the answer to the question should be based on the principles of public international law which serve to define the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state; that in this respect, the existence or disappearance of the state is a question of fact; that the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory;
b) that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty;
c) that, for the purpose of applying these criteria, the form of internal political organization and the constitutional provisions are mere facts, although it is necessary to take them into consideration in order to determine the Government's way over the population and the territory;
d) that in the case of a federal-type state, which embraces communities that possess a degree of autonomy and, moreover, participate in the exercise of political power within the framework of institutions common to the Federation, the existence of the state implies that the federal organs represent the components of the Federation and wield effective power;
b) that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty;
c) that, for the purpose of applying these criteria, the form of internal political organization and the constitutional provisions are mere facts, although it is necessary to take them into consideration in order to determine the Government's way over the population and the territory;
d) that in the case of a federal-type state, which embraces communities that possess a degree of autonomy and, moreover, participate in the exercise of political power within the framework of institutions common to the Federation, the existence of the state implies that the federal organs represent the components of the Federation and wield effective power;
Point #2: A state does not cease to exist while occupied.
This is actually a faulty assumption, improperly stated - and over simplified. The contemporary states of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria --- non-existent before WWI, all "occupied" by the Allied Powers during (and after) the War, and subsequently surrendered at the conclusion of hostilities and while "occupied" --- were partitioned and placed under Mandate and later given independence. This is an evolutionary process in the change from one sovereignty to another. In modern times this is sometimes referred to as the "transition to a successor state."
Excerpt --- Opinion No. 1 of the Arbitration Committee, Badinter Arbitration Committee 3EJIL(1992)178
The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, hereinafter described as Palestine, was a "dependent territory" during the entire tenure of the Mandate and the successor Trusteeship. It was never a "state" that have a government which had the capacities under customary international laws to act as a state. e) that, in compliance with the accepted definition in international law, the expression 'state succession' means the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory. This occurs whenever there is a change in the territory of the state. The phenomenon of state succession is governed by the principles of international law, from which the Vienna Conventions of 23 August 1978 and 8 April 1983 have drawn inspiration. In compliance with these principles, the outcome of succession should be equitable, the states concerned being free of terms of settlement and conditions by agreement. Moreover, the peremptory norms of general international law and, in particular, respect for the fundamental rights of the individual and the rights of peoples and minorities, are binding on all the parties to the succession.
Excerpt --- Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts Done at Vienna on 8 April 1983 --- Article 2 --- Use of terms:
1.For the purposes of the present Convention:
(a) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;
(b) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
(c) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
(d) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;
(e) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which, immediately before the date of the succession of States, was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;
(f) “third State” means any State other than the predecessor State or the successor State.
(b) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
(c) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
(d) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;
(e) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which, immediately before the date of the succession of States, was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;
(f) “third State” means any State other than the predecessor State or the successor State.
Under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine (Article 12), the Mandatory was entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. The Mandatory was entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit. Under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine (Article 9), the Mandatory was responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights. Under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine (Article 1), the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
Point #3: People in non self governing territories have the inalienable right:
The Customary understanding of A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 relative to the Reaffirmation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, does not actually grant anything tangible. Being acknowledged as having a "right" that can not be forfeited (not able to be surrendered, or transferred to another), it not the same as actually taking a step towards exercising the right. I have an "inalienable right" to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," --- that does not mean that it must be handed to me; I must work for them. Just the same as the Palestinians must work for:
(a) The right to self-determination without external interference; and
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
Point #4: "BTW, what is a "legal entity?" ----
What is LEGAL ENTITY?
A lawful or legally standing association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual. Has legal capacity to (1) enter into agreements or contracts, (2) assume obligations, (3) incur and pay debts, (4) sue and be sued in its own right, and (5) to be accountable for illegal activities.
Law Dictionary: What is LEGAL ENTITY? definition of LEGAL ENTITY (Black's Law Dictionary)
A lawful or legally standing association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual. Has legal capacity to (1) enter into agreements or contracts, (2) assume obligations, (3) incur and pay debts, (4) sue and be sued in its own right, and (5) to be accountable for illegal activities.
Law Dictionary: What is LEGAL ENTITY? definition of LEGAL ENTITY (Black's Law Dictionary)
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,424
- 4,883
- 1,815
The bottom line is that Palestinians have everything except that which has been denied to them by illegal external interference.
Denying rights do not negate those rights.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
What was denied them?
Most Respectfully,
R
What was denied them?
(QUESTIONS)
- What was denied?
- What external influence denied it?
Most Respectfully,
R
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,226
- 20,393
- 2,250
Was that after thousands of rockets were fired into Israel by Hezbollah animals? And why were Lebanese Shi'ite terrorist animals shooting rockets into Israel for? Was Israel "occupying" their land too? No, just Islamic animals being Islamic animals.
Why don't you remind us what occurred prior to Israel attacking Lebanon. You know, the actual trigger of the war?
It was also AFTER Hezborats crossed into Israel , blew up two humvees and kidnapped a deceased soldier.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,424
- 4,883
- 1,815
Jeese, Rocco, you pretend to be the expert. You should know this stuff.
New Topics
-
Trump ultimatum: Open Hormuz in 48-hours or your powerplants will be destroyed. (Poll)- Started by kyzr
- Replies: 27
-
-
-
Feds charge former Bay Area resident with $90 million in health care fraud- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 5
-
Who does the jihado Islamic Republic target? (Hint: Not 'military")
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 0
Latest Discussions
-
Trump Eases Iranian Oil Sanctions! You Can't Make This Stuff Up!- Latest: Captain Caveman
-
-
