Specific provisions of the modern conventions establish inherent legal authority of independent and supra-governmental universal jurisdiction for an Inter-Governmental Organization (IGO) Court of Justice, directly from codified conventional international law, which is binding upon all countries (1969 Convention on Law of Treaties, Article 38):
Basic human rights include meaningful access to Justice through an “independent” and “international” Court (1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28), providing “customary Justice” (1985 Declaration of Justice for Abuse of Power, Article 7) by the independent Judiciary profession as “other bodies” without government influence, thereby having “universal jurisdiction” (2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 4, 5, 12, 14).
An “inter-governmental organization” (IGO) Court of “independent judicial authority” has the right to assert universal jurisdiction “at the international level” (1998 Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 5, 9.2, 9.3(c), 9.4), and such independent “professional judges” have “exclusive authority” without government interference in “judicial decisions” (1985 Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, Preamble: ¶1, ¶10, Articles 3, 4).
The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) was strategically established by the independent Judiciary Profession, specifically engineered in every detail, to wholly embody and fully implement all relevant codified requirements of international law. This results in the Court possessing inherent legal authority to assert its universal jurisdiction worldwide.
The primary basis for the official powers and authorities of the Court is its inherent legal authority, directly from the codified modern framework of conventional international law, as the most official authorization and most public evidence conclusively proving its reality and legitimacy. This authority from specific provisions of public law cannot be denied by any country, nor by any person.
To eliminate any potential influence by any particular country, upholding independence as the basis for its legal authority, the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) is licensed by the collective of Member States of the supporting IGO through its Charter. Member States of the host IGO are not permitted direct membership in the Court, and thus have no involvement in its independent Judiciary functions, only indirectly supporting the Court (IVU, Sovereign Charter, Article 39.5).
The Court also holds diplomatic status as an autonomous Official Body of the IGO, thus having statehood as a “subject of international law” (1969 Convention on Law of Treaties, Article 3), invoking the principle of non-interference by any States.
As a result, the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) is the first human rights Court in history to have overcome the inherent limitations of formation by “treaty”. As the Court is not “created” by countries, it firmly stands upon its own supra-governmental authorities of the independent Judiciary, therefore carrying the full legal weight of true universal jurisdiction.
The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ), with its Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ), is an inter-governmental Court of Law, with supra-governmental universal jurisdiction over all matters involving international law (1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28; 2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 3(c), 5, 12, 14; 1998 Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 3, 5, 9.1-9.2; 1985 Declaration of Justice for Abuse of Power, Articles 5, 7; 2007 Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 17.1, 37, 40; 1985 Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, Preamble: ¶1, ¶10, Articles 3, 4, 9, 14).
These official powers and authorities of the Court are “binding upon” all countries, even non-signatories, as a “recognized customary rule of international law” (1969 Convention on Law of Treaties, Article 38).
Officers of the Court hold international supremacy of Judiciary authority, with power to command support of domestic law enforcement worldwide (1985 Independence of Judiciary, Article 7; 2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 4, 17; 1998 Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 12.2-12.3), strictly protected from any and all interference, with absolute immunity (1985 Independence of Judiciary, Articles 1, 2, 4, 16, 18), as an “Internationally Protected Person” (1973 Convention on Internationally Protected Persons, Article 1.1(b); 18 USC 1116(b)).
The principles of Judiciary authorities and immunities fully “apply equally to lay Judges” (1985 Independence of Judiciary, Preamble: ¶10), such that protections are not limited to Presiding Judges, but also include all investigating Instruction Judges, enforcement Compliance Judges, Judiciary Security magistrates, Arbitration Judges, and Judiciary administrators, who are not required to be career legal or judiciary professionals.
There are strict and severe criminal penalties for any and all forms of threats, defamation or interference against any Court or its Judiciary officials, punishable with mandatory enforcement worldwide:
All Judiciary officials of the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) and Arbitration Court (ACIJ) are “entitled to special protection” as an “internationally protected person”, as “any official or other agent of an international organization of an inter-governmental character” (IGO). It is a major international crime to commit “any attack on [their] person… or dignity” including against reputation by means of defamation. (1973 Convention on Internationally Protected Persons, Articles 1.1(b), 2.3.)
No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation denying the legal fact and reality of its inherent legal authorities of the Judiciary as proven by conventional international law:
Internationally protected persons specifically include all Judiciary officials (1985 Independence of Judiciary, Articles 2, 4; 18 USC 1116(b)(4)(B)) of any “international judicial body” or “other body” of the independent Judiciary (2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 5, 12, 14), as an “inter-governmental organization” of “judicial authority” (1998 Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 5, 9.2). Mandatory protection thus applies to all Judiciary officials of any such public institutions (18 USC 1116(b)(5); 18 USC 112(c)).
The Court, as an IGO Official Body exercising statehood in diplomatic relations, is also protected by law under the 1981 Declaration on Interference in Internal Affairs of States, against “all forms of interference, direct or indirect” (Preamble) in its “internal and external affairs (Annex: Preamble), “from any campaign [of] propaganda” by defamation (Article 2: Section 2(j)).
The Court will not be put on “trial by propaganda” in the “court of public opinion” by criminally illegal false defamation against its Judiciary status as proven by public law: The Court will not be pressured to compromise Judiciary security by disclosing its internal legal evidence to defaming parties; The Court will fully prove its official status to law enforcement agencies, directly and privately, for active criminal prosecution of such offenses against the Court.
No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation claiming it is not “recognized” by a particular State, which a private party is not in a position to know and cannot prove, and is irrelevant:
Judiciary protected status fully applies to all States by mandatory force and effect of conventional international law, which is “binding upon” all countries, even non-signatories, as a “recognized customary rule of international law” (1969 Convention on Law of Treaties, Article 38; 18 USC 1116(b)(2)).
No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by demands to reveal personal private identities of individual Presiding Judges, which targets and exposes them to further crimes against the Judiciary:
Under the 1985 Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, Judiciary security is strictly “secured by law” (Article 11), and “assignment of cases to Judges within the Court… is an internal matter of judicial administration” (Article 14), protected by “Judiciary secrecy” as “confidential information” which the Court “shall not be compelled” to disclose (Article 15).
All Courts have the absolute right to strict Judiciary security for the personal safety of all Judiciary officers (1985 Independence of Judiciary, Articles 2, 4, 11; 1998 Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 12.2-12.3; 1973 Internationally Protected Persons, Preamble: ¶2, Article 4).
All Judiciary officers also have protected basic human rights to personal security against “interference with one’s privacy” or “attacks upon one’s honour and reputation” by defamation, and rights to privacy protecting such personal security (1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 12, 3; 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 17, 9), and to “safe working conditions” in general (1966 Covenant on Economic Social Cultural Rights, Article 7(b)).
No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation claiming conflict of interest or alleging involvement of any potential Judiciary official, with defamation claiming to discredit such official:
Under the 1985 Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, the only lawful challenge to a Judgment is to exercise “any right of appeal”, to petition the Court for an Amended Judgment based on new evidence, or to petition the Court for a “disciplinary procedure” of institutional review of the Presiding Judges (Article 16). Any proper “complaint made against a Judge” to the Court requires an internal “fair hearing” which “shall be kept confidential” (Article 17), and is thus protected by mandatory “Judiciary secrecy” of the Court (Article 15).
Any complaint properly filed with the Court must demonstrate apparent bias, by proving a substantive defect of fact or law in the Judgment, as the basis for remedy by internal discipline and issuance of a corrective Amended Judgment.
No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation accusing a Judiciary official of supposedly acting as a Presiding Judge in a case where that official is a Plaintiff, which such person is not in a position to know and cannot prove:
All Judiciary officials retain their absolute protected human right to “equal protection of the law” (1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7; 1966 Civil and Political Rights, Article 26), and right to “equal access to Justice” (2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Preamble: ¶4, Articles 3(c), 11(a), 12); 1985 Declaration of Justice for Abuse of Power, Article 4).
It is only required that any Court official who is a plaintiff or petitioner recuse oneself from being a Presiding Judge in that case, for a different Presiding Judge to decide it impartially and fairly (1985 Independence of Judiciary, Articles 2, 6, 8).
Precisely to guarantee that impartiality, all Judgments of the Court are signed and certified by the Chancellor of the Chamber of Presiding Judges (IVU Sovereign Charter, Article 36.7), who is privy to the “internal matter” of “assignment of cases to Judges” which is otherwise confidential for Judiciary security (1985 Independence of Judiciary, Articles 14-15).
No principle nor any theory of law exists by which a person could be deprived of their basic human right of access to Justice, merely by being a Judiciary official or administrator of the Court which has jurisdiction to uphold their rights. Court staff will not be reduced to defenseless targets and victims of criminals, merely by the threat of potential defamation from adverse parties, only because they help the Court to provide Justice to others.
No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by reason of either the offender or the targeted official being outside of an enforcing country, which is irrelevant:
All States are required to prosecute any crimes against the Judiciary whenever “committed in the territory of” or by a “national of” that State (1973 Internationally Protected Persons, Article 3(b)-(c)). Judiciary officials are thus protected even when “outside” that State (18 USC 1116(c)), and against offenders who may be “outside” that State (18 USC 878(d)), regardless of whether the offense “might take place wholly or partly” outside an enforcing State (UK Serious Crime Act 2007, Schedule 4, Part 1, Part 2.1(d)).
No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation denying the legal fact and reality of its universal jurisdiction by codified legal authority of conventional international law:
Under the 1973 Convention on Internationally Protected Persons, by committing any offenses against the Judiciary, the offender thereby becomes subject to the universal jurisdiction of the inter-governmental Court whose officials are protected, in addition to the national jurisdictions of related countries (Article 8.4).
Ironically, by defaming the Court claiming it lacks jurisdiction, an offender thereby enters, triggers and submits oneself to its jurisdiction. The Court may thus apply and enforce all manner of escalating Contempt of Court Orders, involving both punitive fines and imprisonment.
The universal criminal penalties for offenses against or interference with the Judiciary as internationally protected persons are evidenced by their application in United States Federal Criminal Law:
Any “attempts to intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass” any Court of Law or any Judiciary official (i.e. defamation), or any threats to do so (i.e. threatening defamation), are punishable by 5 years imprisonment (18 USC 112(b)(2); 18 USC 878(a)), and if “in connection with any extortionate demand” (i.e. to prevent, change or rescind a judgment under threat) are punishable by 20 years imprisonment (18 USC 878(b)).
Any of the above in “retaliation” for asserting lawful rights and authorities (i.e. retaliation against a counter-party, affected party or Judiciary official) constitutes a separate felony crime of “Victim or Witness Intimidation” (1998 Declaration on Right to Protect Human Rights, Article 12.2; 1985 Declaration of Justice for Abuse of Power, Article 6(d)), punishable by an additional 10 years imprisonment (18 USC 1513(e)).
Unlawful combination or cooperation with any person (i.e. an associate or media outlet publishing defamation) for any of the above also constitutes a separate felony crime of “Conspiracy Against Rights”, punishable by an additional 10 years imprisonment (18 USC 241; 18 USC 1513(e); 18 USC 1951(a)).
Any online posting on the Internet committing any of the above crimes thereby constitutes illegal contraband (15 USC 1125(b)) and must be destroyed by the user and/or service provider (15 USC 1118). Providers have no immunity for “harassment”, illegal content or criminal content (47 USC 230(b)(5), 230(e)(1)). Once notified of offending content, a provider loses any immunity for all of the related criminal violations (17 USC 512(c)(1)(A)(i),(iii)).
Any defamation filed with a government agency, as a purported “complaint” challenging or denying the Judiciary status of the Court, is universally a crime of making “false reports” to authorities. It does not need to be subjectively “defamatory”, but only needs to be provably “false”, to constitute a punishable criminal offense:
Such false complaints, in addition to being criminal harassment, would also be a direct attack against the diplomatic relations of the Court for its law enforcement cooperation, and thus an international crime of illegal “interference in [its] external affairs” by “propaganda” of defamation (1981 Declaration on Interference in Affairs of States, Annex: Preamble; Article 2: Section 2(j)). This is prosecuted as the felony crime of “false statements” to government agencies, punishable by an additional 5 years imprisonment (18 USC 1001(a)).
This public legal notice is certified and binding (17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)), giving all potential adverse parties or third-party offenders actual or constructive legal notice of the nature and penalties of the relevant criminal offenses.
All Court costs of the Arbitration Court (ACIJ) and Sovereign Court (SCIJ), and all contempt and punitive fines, are used for the express purpose of exercising and implementing the basic human right of access to Justice. All activities of the Court inherently involve, and a significant portion of all Court costs directly include, promoting and protecting human rights.
Under the 1998 Declaration on Right to Protect Human Rights, “Everyone has the right… to receive and utilize resources [funds] for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Article 13).
Therefore, any interference with any payment to the Court by any financial institution or payment services provider shall constitute, and shall be prosecuted as, a major criminal violation of international law against basic human rights. Any such interference will trigger automatic escalation to the higher Sovereign Court (SCIJ) for criminal law investigation, prosecution and enforcement.
The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) is an inter-governmental organization (IGO) as an instrumentality exercising the sovereign authority of its member states, thus possessing autonomous statehood (2004 Jurisdictional Immunities of States, Article 2.1(b)(iii), Article 5), conducting external affairs as an institution of its member states, thus holding full sovereign privileges and immunities (1981 Interference in Affairs of States, Preamble: Point 1, Section 2(e), Section 3(a)), as a non-territorial state (1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Articles 1(i), 3.1(a)).
Diplomatic status is invoked with all privileges and immunities by presenting “Diplomatic Credentials” as issued (1961 Diplomatic Relations, Article 13), exempt from accreditation or embassy registration (1961 Diplomatic, Articles 1(i), 3.1(a)), without requirement of a consular post (1963 Consular Relations, Articles 3, 1(d), 17.1), regardless of recognition (1969 Law of Treaties, Articles 3, 38). IGO Officers do not engage in commerce, retaining full immunities (1963 Consular, Article 57). Immunities fully apply by the fact of sovereignty alone (1961 Diplomatic, Articles 22-36; 1963 Consular, Articles 40-57). High Officials and the Directional Secretariat hold absolute immunity regardless of scope of functions (ICJ Congo v. Belgium, §§ 51-55).
You cannot copy content of this page