Military Review

Britain for the first time in history has lost representation in the International Court of Justice

19
From the UN International Court of Justice there were reports that for the first time in stories the court lost its place in its structures Great Britain. For reference: the UN International Court of Justice (not to be confused with the ICC) began its work in 1946, becoming a substitute organization of the Permanent Chamber of International Justice, which has worked within the League of Nations since 1920.


SkyNews reported that the British candidate Chris Greenwood was not able to get enough votes to be re-elected as a judge. At the same time, Dalvir Bhandari was re-elected from India, whose term of office expired simultaneously with Greenwood.

Britain’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, stated that he did not see anything “frightening” in the fact that Britain would no longer have a representative in the UN International Court of Justice. At the same time, Rycroft added that he and his colleagues at the UN "are still disappointed."

According to the statute of the International Court of Justice, the union consists of 15 judges, who are elected for a 9 term. In addition, each judge has the right to re-election.

Britain for the first time in history has lost representation in the International Court of Justice


Today, the International Court has a representative of Russia. This is judge Kirill Gevorgyan. His powers expire in the 2024 year.

For reference, here are some examples of the activities of the International Court of Justice:
approval of the state border between Qatar and Bahrain with simultaneous resolution of the dispute (2001 year);
resolution of the territorial dispute between Ukraine and Romania in 2009 year.

By the way, it was the International Court of Justice in 2010 that passed the so-called advisory decision, declaring Pristina’s independence of Kosovo to be legal. Then the court added that this is not a binding document, and that the final decision should be taken by the UN Security Council. As is known, Russia and China in the UN Security Council opposed the recognition of the declaration of independence of Kosovo, which did not prevent a number of countries from recognizing the Serbian territory - the province of Kosovo - as an “independent state”.
Photos used:
Wikipedia
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kleber
    Kleber 21 November 2017 17: 44
    +3
    Well, that's nice.
    1. den3080
      den3080 21 November 2017 17: 47
      +4
      continue to crap, no doubt. in front of the threshold of the court, under the door, with both well-known methods: installation and performance.
      :))
      1. Kleber
        Kleber 21 November 2017 17: 51
        +1
        This is primarily a signal that England is losing international authority.
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 21 November 2017 18: 11
          +4
          Quote: Kleber
          England is losing international authority.

          Come on! Club of bored gentlemen-hook creators on a salary this so-called "International Court of Justice" Today, when international law is almost dead, the real value of the judgments of this judicial body is zero. He who wants to, will fulfill, he who does not want to will score a big bolt. There is simply no mechanism for enforcing such judicial decisions.
          I add that the loss of a place in this organization has absolutely nothing to do with the international authority of Great Britain - this only speaks of the qualifications of a particular British judge.
          1. Orionvit
            Orionvit 21 November 2017 20: 57
            0
            This is all clear, I'm interested in something else
            British candidate Chris Greenwood could not get enough votes to be re-elected
            Who really votes for specific judges? It seems to me that someone, not being able to loudly express their “phi” to the UK, is doing it quietly, but clearly.
        2. Nikolai Grek
          Nikolai Grek 21 November 2017 18: 29
          +1
          Quote: Kleber
          This is primarily a signal that England is losing international authority.

          she has not had it for a long time !!! wassat wassat laughing laughing
        3. Kent0001
          Kent0001 21 November 2017 19: 20
          +1
          Come on. They don’t need it. They themselves, without a court, decide everything as they need. And to us, if anything, this court in a 100 percent case in our favor will decide against us.
      2. Angel_and_Demon
        Angel_and_Demon 21 November 2017 17: 57
        +8
        Quote: den3080
        continue to crap, no doubt. in front of the threshold of the court, under the door, with both well-known methods: installation and performance.

        by nature they always crap, but now they just all realized that the American rug is not needed in court
    2. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 21 November 2017 19: 56
      0
      Yes, spit on. Britain, it is nothing, here in Syria the big uncles say they didn’t ask small people nirazu and did not even invite to listen to them under the door.
  2. Herculesic
    Herculesic 21 November 2017 17: 46
    +3
    This trial generally needs to be dispersed, and all the more so since there are those who simply legitimize the death of states from US crimes, but who do not punish the perpetrators.
    1. Pirogov
      Pirogov 21 November 2017 17: 51
      0
      Quote: Herkulesich
      This trial generally needs to be dispersed, and all the more so since there are those who simply legitimize the death of states from US crimes, but who do not punish the perpetrators.

      I fully support you. And it is time for the UN courts to disperse this UN itself.
      1. Victor Dubovitsky
        Victor Dubovitsky 21 November 2017 18: 28
        +2
        Quote: Pirogov
        Quote: Herkulesich
        This trial generally needs to be dispersed, and all the more so since there are those who simply legitimize the death of states from US crimes, but who do not punish the perpetrators.

        I fully support you. And it is time for the UN courts to disperse this UN itself.

        Pindos you hate would be glad to this circumstance. Do not overclock. It is necessary to persistently .... Otherwise, animals from the USA will lose any control at all. They are going to disperse the UN for a long time. And you sculpt the same nonsense.
        1. Orionvit
          Orionvit 21 November 2017 21: 06
          0
          Quote: Victor Dubovitsky
          Do not overclock. Need to persistently ..

          Of course, it is too early to disperse, but it is urgently necessary not at the UN (there it is practically useless, except for the veto of course), but in other places. As for example in Syria, or in the Crimea. Clear and convincing.
          1. Victor Dubovitsky
            Victor Dubovitsky 21 November 2017 22: 39
            +2
            Quote: Orionvit
            Quote: Victor Dubovitsky
            Do not overclock. Need to persistently ..

            Of course, it is too early to disperse, but it is urgently necessary not at the UN (there it is practically useless, except for the veto of course), but in other places. As for example in Syria, or in the Crimea. Clear and convincing.

            I’ll clarify. There is no veto in the UN. Only in the Security Council, where there are five members. The UN has a darkness of various committees, necessary, not necessary. This is a place for chatter. But without it, everything will creep into their villages and everyone will sculpt nonsense to the extent of their idiocy. Politics is not only fighting.
            1. Orionvit
              Orionvit 21 November 2017 23: 32
              0
              Quote: Victor Dubovitsky
              There is no veto in the UN. Only in the Security Council, where there are five members

              Excuse me, but the Security Council is not by chance at the UN? Or is he a boy himself?
              1. Victor Dubovitsky
                Victor Dubovitsky 22 November 2017 10: 19
                0
                Quote: Orionvit
                Quote: Victor Dubovitsky
                There is no veto in the UN. Only in the Security Council, where there are five members

                Excuse me, but the Security Council is not by chance at the UN? Or is he a boy himself?

                Yes, one of the working UN units. But it does not mean. that it is the UN that has such powers. The veto power of any of the 190 (I don’t remember exactly, it doesn’t matter) countries will make any decision impossible. The Security Council stalls often, having opinions of only 5.
  3. izya top
    izya top 21 November 2017 17: 46
    +1
    I think the Buckingham grandmother doesn’t judge her anyway, although she deserves it am
  4. Eurodav
    Eurodav 21 November 2017 17: 53
    0
    Im like a dead poultice to them! They consider themselves beyond jurisdiction, so they see no problems due to the absence of their judge ...
    In general, all these sharagi must have been dissolved for a long time, and the personnel for heavy production / mining ... uranium, for example ...
  5. Egorovich
    Egorovich 21 November 2017 18: 19
    +5
    They didn’t re-elect, so they didn’t deserve it. Still, not everything is sold in our world.