Masan City Passes #82…

You can also visit the sites on vegas

Masan City Passes #82…

Masan City Passes #82…

Take your time to visit the sites dedicated to rx diet pill

I have written up a new page on Nakai Yozaburo.

It’s at the website link on this post.

…or:
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page11.html

“There are two distinct types of cases upon which the court may rule: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court, and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do.”

Again, there is no clearity on what will be considered “contentuous issues between states” and would be considered “advisory opinions which provide reasoned, but non-binding ruling”. I would think the Tokdo issue will fall in the ladder case, since the situation is not serious to the point of war or destruction. Also read this:

“Should either party fail “to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court”, the Security Council may be called upon to “make recommendations or decide upon measures” if the security council deems such actions necessary.”

I tell you, Korea will never abide by the ruling, nor Japan. Even if the case is considered a “binding contentous case”, and even if the UN security gets involved (which is highly unlikely over couple of rocks), the rulings are toothless.

The key words here are “if the security council deems such actions necessary”. Yes, that reads “if deemed such actions necessary”. Now do you honestly think the Security Council of the UN will meet to decide what to do about Japan or S.Korea if they decide not to go along with the IJC ruling on two little rocky islands that hardly anybody outside Korea and Japan care about? What is the UN court going to do? Slap military/economic sanctions over this?

OK, “non binding” maybe poor choice of words from me - give you that one, but better choice of word would have been “toothless”, especially in light of who we’re talking about here - the UN.

So what do we have here? Korea will never accept a loss. Japan will never accept a loss. The judges are toothless enforcing decisions involving border disputes. What is the best interest of Korea to agree to take this to the courts again?