This is the page for the Court of Justice of the United Nations, made to try nations. It is separate from the Security Council, but can request military action from the Security Council.
International Court of Justice Judges
Past ICJ Cases
International Court of Justice Case 1: China/Hindustan/Japan vs. UN
International Court of Justice Case 2: Who owns Guayana Esequiba!
Internation Court of Justice Case 3: (Stop the War Asian Front)
International Court Justice Case 4: The United States of America's invasion of Mexico is a violation of the UN resolution
Begun by Japan. This case is a plain and flagrant violation of the UN resolution and the United States should withdraw its forces from all of the Japanese Mexico Territory, including but not limited to, the Baja California and Baja California Sur.
Cuba: You agreed to leave Mexico decades ago. You are in violation of the UN resolution. You both should leave Mexico NOW. These capitalist pigs want it for their own gain and industry. They don't care about the people of Mexico!
International Court of Justice 5: Stop Unprovoked attacks!!
Hindustan. Stop the war of Russia and Britain with Russia keeping Kurdistan which the British keeping the territory they had before they attacked the British unprovoked. The British will give a bit of Iraqi territory but will keep major cities.
can't veto in the ICJ
Soviet Union: Our actions are perfectly legal. A peace agreement was never reached between the USSR and the UASR. It is within our right to attack our enemy anywhere we can. And were attacked the British because they were part of the Eurasian Powers. We were at war with other members of the Eurasian Powers. Therefore, we assumed we were at war with Britain. This is how alliances work, is it not?
Soviet Union Please, refresh our memory. we see no peace offers on the Diplomacy page. We see no peace offers on the main talk page, we don't see any on the main page itself. So if any offers were made, we must have missed them entirely. Please, point them out to us.
Italy: You are pretty hypocritical by suggesting this, Hindustan. The Hindustani and British governments have, after all, imperialised over Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the Trucial States, Madagascar, Mozambique, Portuguese Angola, Belgian Congo, and most recently, the Kurdistan and Turkey you claim as your own. This is also senseless, since all of your "improve their infrastructure" ideas have no sense.
But that would just be bossing around by the US. I think we should change it so that if a majority (three perms) agree to veto it, then it is vetoed. Isn't that how true democracy works? Even if the US veto's this proposal, do you agree to the above proposal as it is being fair to both parties?
Italy: doesn't work like that. If it was changed to that, then an attack to a SC council could be passed easily. If three of five agree to veto, then it wouldn't pass in the first place. And you're being hypocritical, Hindustan, because you invaded the colonial territories and then criticized the Soviets for doing the exact same thing.
Cuba: Giving the USA the power to veto is as good as not having a UN. We would never get anything done. They will veto anything that's bad for those greedy capitalist businesspeople.
Cuba: This is why the SC shouldn't be around. It gives too much power to nations that like to bully other nations. The UN needs to be equal; everyone needs to have the same capabilities if this congress is to suceed.