I was looking for what the "ICLCJ" was. It appears to be... nothing, at least from a legal perspective.
Laws only have meaning if people agree to the jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction people don't agree with the laws. For example, if Egypt charged me with a crime, it would be meaningless for me here in America because I am not within the Egyptian Jurisdiction, and America doesn't recognize Egyptian law as binding.
Now they may have an extradition treaty under which I would be sent there, and then under first the American jurisdiction that has the treaty (which is considered binding law) and then under the Egyptian law (once I got to Egypt) I would then be subject to their law. Now that's not entirely true, since I don't recognize Egypt as a sovereign, but other people would disagree with me, and I would be punished under the tyranny of that group.
The point is, law is a matter of agreement, and without agreement, a law has no power. In the case of the ICLCJ I can find no agreement between that organization (or random person on the internet, whatever they may be) and any country, or even other people. Without such an agreement, there is no jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, there is no law that is binding. If a law is not binding, it is nothing but yelling in the street, with less noise and more laughter.
If you have any evidence of a meaningful agreement of jurisdiction between that body and any other, please show it to me.
It has nothing to do with me.
I was looking for what the "ICLCJ" was. It appears to be... nothing, at least from a legal perspective.
Laws only have meaning if people agree to the jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction people don't agree with the laws. For example, if Egypt charged me with a crime, it would be meaningless for me here in America because I am not within the Egyptian Jurisdiction, and America doesn't recognize Egyptian law as binding.
Now they may have an extradition treaty under which I would be sent there, and then under first the American jurisdiction that has the treaty (which is considered binding law) and then under the Egyptian law (once I got to Egypt) I would then be subject to their law. Now that's not entirely true, since I don't recognize Egypt as a sovereign, but other people would disagree with me, and I would be punished under the tyranny of that group.
The point is, law is a matter of agreement, and without agreement, a law has no power. In the case of the ICLCJ I can find no agreement between that organization (or random person on the internet, whatever they may be) and any country, or even other people. Without such an agreement, there is no jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, there is no law that is binding. If a law is not binding, it is nothing but yelling in the street, with less noise and more laughter.
If you have any evidence of a meaningful agreement of jurisdiction between that body and any other, please show it to me.