“No it wouldn’t.”.
Ah, but it WOULD. It most assuredly would.
“The synopsis is based on law and accountability. IgnorantFookin’Twat!”
SUPPOSED to be so based; yes, quite so.
ICJ’s problem, however, is that — unlike as with a nation’s domestic courts, where jurisdiction is always presumed (by virtue of the country’s sovereignty), and which an imbecile like PresentCompany thus automatically takes for granted
— international courts have only what jurisdiction is CONFERRED on them: by the willing, state parties to an action, if indeed the respective parties all ARE so willing — a question of consent likely to hinge on whether the present govt of a given state party believes it has reason to trust in that Court’s fundamental OBJECTIVITY & IMPARTIALITY (two qualities, btw, which are not identical).
So, in the absence of jurisdiction, such a Court has no authority to even HEAR a matter — let alone, presume to ‘RULE’ on it.
Not that such courts aren’t capable of breaking the rules, and hearing a matter anyway, notwithstanding the absence of the authority intrinsic to competent jurisdiction in the case.
After all, who’s going to ‘stop’ them?
ArrogantFookinTwit!