It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

International court of The Hague is menacing gravely the rule of Law with political verdicts.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:12 AM
The Peace of God to all that belong to the LIght,
Dear Readers,

The rule of Law is not guaranty of that the rights of everybody can be fully preserved but it is the most perfect tool that humanity has developed to maintain a minimum of ordering that create conditions for the survival of people, societies and nations. Without the rule of Law no doubt this world would be an absolute hostile jungle in which crimes should be all the time ruling life.

Since the time of the Ancient Rome it was clear that humanity accepted that one unquestionable signal of civilization and what separate us from animals is the rule of Law, a body of ethical principles and values that rule the relationships in between individuals, groups and nations.

One fundamental element of the Law is the respect to agreements in between parts, especially if they have been fully approved and even ratified or certified with the very definitive legal procedures to guarantee its meaning and validity.

Treaties in between nations are binding, that is a fundamental principle of law, otherwise this could ride to completely instability in negotiations in which the responsibilities and the rights become completely eroded or fooled by the will of the parts to accept what they initially agreed.

This is what The Republic of Chile has told today in the International Court of The Hague, with respect to the Bolivian claim to try to sue them to get access to the Pacific ocean looking for a favorable verdict of the court.

Now, what ever the Answer of the tribunal would be could send it to the worst crisis of credibility since its foundation.

If the court accepts Bolivian claims it create another precedent of the violation of the fundamental principle that treaties in between nations are binding, and if not It may go in opposite direction to the infamous decision taken by that same tribunal about the treaty of 1928 in between Columbia and Nicaragua, that established the maritime limit in between the two countries is the 82 meridian.

In 2014 Columbia moved away from the jurisdiction of the international court, even being the original country in which one of the key international agreements of the legal scope of the court was established by the so called Bogota Pact of 1948.

The Republic of Columbia considers its sovereignty was gravely compromised by a verdict that was not based on Law but on politics.
Columbian territory and marine zones in the Caribbean became fractured as a consequence of a decision that is not accepted since it is based on making void a treaty that was even fully ratified by the congresses of the two nations.

The attitude of Columbia to attend formally the process in the International court showed its deep respect to the rule of Law, but the decision was taken against a treaty that can't be void for the simple reason that was not only signed but ratified by the two congresses and also applied along many decades from 1928 to 1979.

It was the arrival of the Sandinist Marxist regime to rule Nicaragua what altered completely the status quo in between the two nations. Daniel Ortega wanted to build a Chinese interoceanic canal in its territory and due to that project he was decided to violate the international treaties with Costa Rica, Panama and Columbia.

Nicaraguan went with a bunch of lies to the Court to find the way to go around the treaty of 1928 and fool Columbians in the settlement of the maritime borders that was fixed decades ago.

Surely Chile will follow the same decision of Columbia if the court decide to favor Bolivia. The crucial point here is that the attitude of the Hague international court is extremely grave for the international legal frame, moreover contradicts clearly the rule of Law, since it is through very controversial decisions trying to rewrite History and invalidate treaties that were absolutely approved in between countries and then applied along decades.

There is no doubt that what the court is doing is not to apply rule of Law but politics, is favoring countries that have decided to fool others in the compromises acquired through treaties and so is messing the world order giving instruments to those nations to fight against their counterparts in strictly bilateral affairs that attain on sovereignty.

We are dealing here to a political plot that is happening in the core of what supposedly might be the very highest Justice court of the world. This is extremely grave since their political decisions, that are perverting the meaning of Law , also supposedly can't be appealed. The verdicts of The Hague court are inviting to more Machiavellian or pirate regimes to gain advantage by fooling legal agreements with nations that are respecting the rule of Law, based on political arguments.

Of course the thread is open to the free discussion of this so important topic within the boundaries of the mutual respect and decorum norms.


The Angel of Lightness

edit on 6/30/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 04:37 PM
a reply to: The angel of light

Dear Readers,

One crucial argument that Chile delegation in The Hague is defending is that the jurisdiction of the court is not retroactive, it can't go back to cases or situations that were decided, negotiated or happened before the existence of the Tribunal, and that makes sense since nothing can be illegal before that a Law is created to determine that it is either a crime or a non legal action.

The present limits in between Chile and Bolivia were determined by a treaty signed in 1904, after a war , so more than 40 years before the existence of the International court of Justice and of course of the United Nations, that is the organism that gives power to the court.

interestingly this situation also happen in the case of the maritime limits in between Nicaragua and Columbia, that were fixed by a treaty signed and ratified in 1928, the same that the court has declared practically void with its latest verdict on that subject.

The Nicaraguan Argument is that their country was at that time 'invaded' by American troops so in a very manipulative way they claim that this situation affected the freedom of Nicaragua to negotiate their limits with other neighbor countries, like Columbia.

The fact is that the presence of American troops in that moment was not technically an invasion, since President Diaz of Nicaragua with the authorization of the national congress of the central American country called the American military aid to push the British army out of the Cost of Moskitia, a territory that Nicaragua wanted to annex.

The Moskitia coast or Kingdom of Miskitia was a British Protectorate, with absolute Independence in internal affairs but protected by British arm forces, as a matter of fact it was the very first independent nation of the western Hemisphere, since the XVIII century, preceding even United States.

Miskitia independence ended by a treaty signed between Great Britain and Nicaragua, the one that was never negotiated with the support of the population of the region. The Miskite people never had any opportunity to express their will in a referendum, they were ignored and moved from the sphere of influence of London to the one of Managua as part of a huge international intrigue. Their Aborigine King and political institutions were not respected or considered at all.

Miskitia is looking for its independence from Nicaragua, a movement that is defying the Sandinist regime of Managua and also the Honduras government, since both central American countries agreed to partition Miskitia after the forced annexation.

The Expansion of Nicaragua to Moskitia was of course in fact a violation of the sovereignty of the only nation of the continent that was ruled by native aborigines, with no European presence on it, by a country that was formerly part of the Spanish Empire. Ironically the only country that received full recognition of sovereignty from Spain over the present coast of Moskitia was Columbia, not Nicaragua. Also there is sense of irony in the fact that NIcaragua invaded Miskitia with the help of American troops, but now they are claiming that they were the invaded nation.

Retroactivity is a vicious concept in Rule of Law, since could make guilty of a violation of the regulations a part that even was not aware of that for the simple reason that at that time frame it was not regulated as it. In other words, this no sense makes possible to a Law to have effect backward in time with respect to its creation.

Here a Quote from the Chilean thesis:

The Chilean delegation recalled one of the primary reasons why Santiago is opting to challenge the ICJ’s jurisdiction: the 1948 Pact of Bogotá, to which both nations are signees. The Pact of Bogotá, known officially as the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, established that signees to the pact would settle disputes through exhaustive peaceful avenues and if this did not produce a result, they were to then defer the definitive ruling to the ICJ. Chile says this does not matter, however, as the Pact of Bogotá does not grant the ICJ jurisdiction to preside over cases or situations that occurred prior to the Pact’s establishment in 1948

If retroactivity becomes a rule this can create precedent of a lot of unfair future verdicts of parts that become guilty or responsible of to have trespassed regulations that didn't exist on the time the action occurred, in other words a complete legal absurd.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 6/30/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

new topics

log in