27 May—Den Haag, the third largest city in the Netherlands, is also called ’s-Gravenhage in Dutch, mostly by locals; it means “The Count’s Hedge”—the Counts of Holland hunted there in the bad old days. In English it’s known as The Hague, always with a capital T (just like The Litchfield Monitor). The Hague is home to many international organizations, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

The International Court of Justice, abbreviated as ICJ and commonly known as the World Court, is the United Nations’ successor to the failed League of Nations’ Permanent Court of International Justice, known in its day as—wait for it—the World Court. The ICJ is one of the six so-called principal organs of the failing United Nations. Its stated purpose is to hear (and presumably iron out) disputes between nations.

It’s presumed—if not necessarily expected—that all member states of the U.N. will comply with decisions of the ICJ. So the legally diligent United States—with good cause, constitutional and otherwise—withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction back in 1986. Other countries that are on record as not recognizing the World Court’s jurisdiction include China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen.

So is it right for the United States to have a judge on the World Court? Sarah Cleveland was seated in The Hague earlier this year.

Israel is bound by decisions of the World Court, as is Russia. But the ICJ has no serious means of enforcing its rulings. Surprised?

For the record, the U.N.’s other principal organs are the General Assembly, the Secretariat, the Security Council, and the Trusteeship Council, all wasting valuable real estate in New York; and the Economic and Social Council (UNESCO), doing pretty much the same in Paris.

Then there’s the International Criminal Court, abbreviated as ICC, but not to be confused with the International Cricket Council or the Interstate Commerce Commission. The ICC, while not affiliated with the U.N., is an international intergovernmental organization with the questionable jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of genocide, and the crime of aggression.

The ICC can’t impose the death penalty. But in addition to imposing prison sentences, it can order fines and seizure of certain assets. It also has the power to issue reparations to victims.

Enforcement can be problematic, though, since the International Criminal Court doesn’t have its own police force or any other effective means of enforcement. So it must rely on cooperation of the world’s nations for, among other things, making arrests, enforcing sentences, freezing assets, and transferring prisoners. The ICC actually has a slammer within a Dutch prison complex convenient to The Hague.

The United States is among the countries that are not party to the International Criminal Court. Others include India, Indonesia, China, and Russia. And Israel. The U.S. had in fact signed on to the Rome Statute that created the ICC in 2000 under the Clinton administration—but Willy’s wankers couldn’t get Senate cooperation. The Bush Jr. administration formally deleted America’s signature in 2002 and wisely refused to ratify the agreement.

Even though the U.S. has no judges on the ICC, we cooperate with it when it’s to our convenience and—better yet—advantage.

And that takes us to the ICJ and ICC versus Israel. Simply and realistically put, neither silly court would have any problems with Israel’s offensively defensive—because offense is the best defense—activities if little Israel weren’t the Jewish state . . .