Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada suing the US for pollution?
Message-ID: <1600@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Feb-87 09:01:13 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1600
Posted: Tue Feb 24 09:01:13 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Feb-87 18:46:25 EST
References: <1594@lsuc.UUCP> <639@watcgl.UUCP>
Sender: dave@lsuc.UUCP
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 31
Summary: World Court != court

In article <639@watcgl.UUCP> pptanner@watcgl.UUCP (Peter P. Tanner) writes:
>In article <1594@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>
>>Don't bother giving answers to these; they're just examples of some
>>of the problems. This type of complaint is something more appropriate
>>to a non-legal body such as the World Court, perhaps, where issues of
>>jurisdiction and standing must be agreed on *before* anyone actually
>>gets to court.
>
>The US does not recognize decisions of the World Court since the
>Nicaraguan Government brought a complaint against the US to it.

Which was precisely my point. The "World Court" isn't really a
court at all, since it has no power to enforce its judgments.
It's more like an arbitrator, which must have all issues of
jurisdiction and standing resolved by agreement between the
parties before it addresses the issue. Then its decisions are
binding (poitically, at lesat) in that the parties have agreed
beforehand to respect its decision.

This is similar, for example, to a civil dispute between two
Jews being resolved by a Beit Din, a rabbinic court. If the
litigants agree ahead to time to follow the judgment of the
Beit Din, the secular courts will then enforce the Beit Din's
judgment as between the parties. The same goes for any arbitrator.

David Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
{ seismo!mnetor  cbosgd!utgpu  watmath  decvax!utcsri  ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave