International Courts

International Criminal Court (1998)

History records terrible crimes and atrocities committed in all regions of the world. We believe that states have the duty to bring to justice in their own courts persons responsible for genocide, other crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian law. Unfortunately, this is not always done. Sometimes there is a collapse of the state’s authority or criminals gain control.

A permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), with the appropriate safeguards to avoid politicizing the process, would provide the mechanism and forum for securing international human rights. Such an ICC would only adjudicate when there is no national judicial system available to try these crimes; or if the national system involved is ineffective.

Jewish tradition teaches that we may not remain indifferent to human suffering and must be committed to the protection of human rights and dignity.

Women’s League for Conservative Judaism:

  1. Supports the longstanding efforts of the UN to establish a permanent and effective International Criminal Court that would be empowered to prosecute individuals accused of serious violations of international law, in particular, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
  2. Urges our governments to assume leading roles in this effort, while seeking to insure that the Court operate under the highest standards of due process and respect for sovereignty.

International Court of Justice (1964)

For many years, National Women’s League has adopted resolutions in support of the International Court of Justice (World Court) for the settlement of international disputes. We have decried the reservations of the Connally Amendment which restricts the United States’ access to the World Court. World peace must rest on a basis of world law and order.

We therefore urge our government to repeal the Connally Amendment so that the United States can join with the other nations of the world in strengthening the International Court of Justice.

International Court of Justice (1962)

We urge the United States to further the settlements of international dispute through the use of the World Court so that the development of world law and the reduction of the use of force will be encouraged. The Connally Amendment, which reserves for the United States the right to decide whether the World Court has jurisdiction over a dispute between the United States and other countries, should be repealed. This would increase the prestige and authority of the World Court.

International Court of Justice (1960)

The United States should encourage by example and other means, the settlement of international disputes whenever possible through the wider use of the International Court of Justice (World Court), the principal judicial organ of the UN. Development of a working rule of law in the world displacing resort to force, is the supreme ideal for the community of nations.

We call upon Congress to repeal the self-judging reservation adopted by Congress in 1946 (the Connally Resolution) which in effect, reserves for the U.S., the right to decide whether the World Court has jurisdiction over a dispute between the U.S. and other countries. The UN Charter provides for such contingencies and the statutes of the World Court clearly define its jurisdiction.