Difference between revisions of "International Court of Law"
(→Legal Rulings & Opinions)
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
Revision as of 12:22, 17 January 2010
The international institutions for resolving conflicts are two:
- The United Nations and the Security Council. These are clearly political bodies. Therefore, even the (under translation) decisions of the United Nations and the Security Council are no more than the agreement of the majority of nations, and it is possible that they are against the minority for political reasons. It goes without saying that per the religious and ethnic makeup it is usually possible to predict the decisions of these institutions without actually examining the specifics of the conflict. The United Nations is naturally involved in international conflicts. In the Security Council, discussion of an issue is not possible if one of the powers is not interested to see it raised. Therefore it is not relevant to speak of the concept of justice in these institutions.
- The International Court in Hague. This court indeed is a gathering of judges from different nations which come together to judge international conflicts. The judges come from different nations, including totalitarian nations. Likewise, the values by which the different judges rule sometimes come from strange cultures; where in one place what is considered a crime is thought of as a norm and even positive in another. As an explanatory example, in Muslim countries, murder of women who are suspect of harming familial honor is not only not a crime, but it is thought of as an honorable act. In China, where there is a 10% excess in males, there is a wide spread phenomenon of abortions, and even of murdering of undesirable babies (mainly girls) for the reason that males are thought of as desirable, and not females. According to Islam, the entire world should be conquered by blood and fire. Judges coming from Muslim lands are loyal to this idea, not to say that the religion of Islam permits genocide. Naturally, one should not expect justice to come out of this court.
The Permanent Court of the Sanhedrin, in which rabbis serve in an ad hoc manner, who will sit in judgment on occasions in which it is clear that the line of justice will be damaged if they do not convene. An example of this is the ethnic strife in Sudan, the persecution of Falun Gong in China, and the ethnic strife in Yugoslavia, etc. The Court has no leanings in these matters, it being an apolitical body which is not subject even to the pressure of the Israeli government, in that it was not sent or funded by it, and it judges according to the eternal Torah of Moses, who brought us the Torah from Sinai and promises judges and eternal set values.
Legal Rulings & Opinions
- Letter to the Secretary General of the U.N. regarding the Goldstone Report (11 Cheshvan 5770, 2 November 2009)
- Immediate Injunction to Prohibit the U.N. Security Council from discussing the Goldstone Report (30 Tishrei 5770, 18 October 2009)
- Damages caused to us by the State of Spain and what is the known as the "Holy Inquisition" (8 Adar 5769, 4 March 2009)
- NTDTV television protesting before the court of the Sanhedrin against the satellite company for the unilateral abrogation of an agreement (12 Av 5768, 14 August 2009)
- Final Decision regarding Falong Gong vs. People’s Republic of China (12 Tamuz 5768, 15 July 2009)
Relationship to the Nascent Sanhedrin