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[]
| Name | Position | Term Began | Term End | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isidro Fabela |  Mayan Republic
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Rafael Nieto Abeillé |  Cuba
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Wim van-Roos |  Netherlands
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Sandro Pertini |  Italy
|
Member | 1949 | ? |
| Bohdan Winiarski |  Poland
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Levi Carneiro |  Brazil
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Benegal Rama Rau |  Hindustan
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Green Hackworth |  United States
|
President | 1948 | ? |
| Sergei Krylov |  Soviet Union
|
Vice-President | 1948 | ? |
| Milovan Zoričić |  Yugoslavia
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Jules Basdevant |  France
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Arnold McNair, 1st Baron McNair |  Great Britain
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Helge Klæstad |  Norway
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Hsu Mo |  China
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
| Kotaro Tanaka |  Japan
|
Member | 1948 | ? |
Past ICJ Cases[]
International Court of Justice Case 1: China/Hindustan/Japan vs. UN[]
Won by China/Hindustan/Japan
International Court of Justice Case 2: Who owns Guayana Esequiba![]
Won by Venezuela
Internation Court of Justice Case 3: (Stop the War Asian Front)[]
Won by Hindustan
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.
Ruling[]
Japanese favour
Support[]
Japan
Hindustan
UCSR
UASR
Opposition[]
Soviet Union
United States
Abstain[]
Yugoslavia
Ireland
Mayan Republic
Disscusion[]
Soviet Union: you two are at war. How you expected him to not invade territory that he could reach is beyond me.
Japan: There was never an official declaration of war. Thus we ain't at war.
Italy: Italy proposes that all foreign nations withdraw from Mexico. immediately.
United States: If it is passed, we will veto it.
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!
United States: Then why don't you leave?
Cuba: We did.
Venezuela: We left our client state (the Mayan Republic) about 8-10 years ago.
The Mayan Republic gained independence from Mexico and Venezuela in 1947.
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.
Ruling[]
?
Support[]
Argentina: Not a member but pledges support anyway. Sevestron [T][AvA] 09:47, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
UASR
Hindustan
Japan
Yugoslavia
Opposition[]
Soviet Union
Italy
Abstain[]
Mayan Republic
Veto[]
United States
can't veto in the ICJ
Result[]
Hindustani Victory after talks with the Soviet Union
Discussion[]
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?
It would, however, many a efforts were made to make peace agreements with you but you never listened. That is why this step was necessary.
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, Moçambique, 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.
Well, isn't Soviet Russia being hypocritical as well? They could have just asked Britain for Kurdish territories and that would have been it. No attack.
What about your talk page? You can have Kurdistan, we keep the rest of Iraq, how does that sound? BTW, you can't veto this, we are a member of the Permanent security council.
That isn't how it works. All the SC members have to agree. If one person vetoes it, then it fails. You cannot block a Permanent security council members veto.
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.
United States: Well, we have two other perm SC members against it anyways . . .
Ireland wants all fighting to end.
Spain agrees with Ireland.
This is a pretty good proposal for Russia, would they be against this??
The Mayan Republic thinks scrapping the power to Veto as a whole would be best.
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.
Italy: If you pass an idea for ending the veto, we'll veto it. See the irony? Actually, removing the veto will remove everything special from the permanent SC.
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.
Hindustan: This Case is officially closed.
Venezuela would like to point out that is easier to open and close cases in a military system and that the UN's real failing is the excessive use of "indecisive and long-winded civilian politics".