zlacker

> in which individual country governments must sign on

meaning what? toothless is still toothless even using words like must. what happens if majority individuals do not? last I checked, the US still hasn't signed the same agreements about ICC or ICJ.

>>dylan6+(OP)
> last I checked, the US still hasn't signed the same agreements about ... ICJ.

The united states signed on to the ICJ in 1945.

Some treaties have optional parts where you can defer disputes to the icj. The united states is a party to some of those but not all of them. But that is really a separate thing from the ICJ.

The ICC is very different from ICJ. USA has been pretty hostile to the icc since the get-go.

>>dylan6+(OP)
I don't think it's the "must" used to express obligations or issue demands, but the "must" for stating necessary conditions.

"...in which countries must sign on [if they want the treaty to have legal standing within their jurisdiction]"

>>bawolf+61
I did a quick search on US and ICJ, and the first hit was "The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International..." and I failed to follow to see it was not the ICJ that I searched for but "...Criminal Court" now that I followed up. Got screwed on very quick/lazy research and shitty search result returning something not related to the query. Fucking hate modern search

>>dylan6+F3
In fairness, the us does tend to give the middle finger to the ICJ anytime it rules in a way it doesn't like.