the international court of justice, the highest judicial body in the world, the are bitter of what international law constitutes in the world, the international court of justice says all the territory to the east of the green line is occupied palestinian territory. namely the whole of the west bank and gaza and east jerusalem. but the part to the west of the green line, that is israel. that is a state under international law. and it says at the end, the last sentence of this opinion, we look forward to the creation of a palestinian state, side-by-side with israel, leaving in peace with its neighbors. so, to me, it's perplexing how you can both claim your whole enterprise is based on international law, yet claim to be ago nose -- agnostic on one critical component of the international law. you may not like the international law, and that's fair enough. but if you don't like the law, don't pretend, don't claim that your enterprise is based on international law, because it is not. the law is not agnostic or silent on the question of israel. the law is very clear on that question. number two, can yo

of the. international organizations treaties including the statue to the international court of justice so let's talk about some of the leverage that palestine now has from the status francis what new status doesn't give an international court your kind of justice just a touch upon what the legal recourses does palestine have right now. well there are two in particular the first palestine can become a party to the statute of the international court of justice in the hague the so-called will court of the united nations system and then snow israel itself at the will court second telus style and can now read afai the rome statute or the international criminal court and file a complaint against the highest level officials of the israeli government so. for war crimes crimes against humanity and genocide you saw one of the reactions of the israel to the vote in the general assembly was to immediately announce the construction of more settlements are these settlements are war crimes the international court of justice the rules in the advisory opinion on israel's will they break the court's in either co

of going to join either the international criminal court which could allow some level of accountability for israeli war crimes addition. only it means they could have the possibility to join the international court of justice as a member as a state in which case they could do what countries do in the international court of justice all the time bring a lawsuit against another country in this case the state of palestine could sue the state of israel for its illegal occupation. fellow nobel peace prize laureates don't believe the. stand side by side with past winners several previous recipients the man the block is stripped of the award as it as its values don't fit with what alfred nobel had in mind that is ahead for you plus the u.s. close the door to high tech innovators from abroad despite foreigners previously spearheading the country's digital revolution is coming up official. a lovely quiet morning a family gently sleeps in district heights maryland when fifty armed f.b.i. agents storm the house guns drawn despite the family pleading that they were unarmed the law enforcement agents opened fire on a weaponless teenager my asian huli thankfully sholay suffered minor flesh wounds but the key issue is tha

of going to join either the international criminal court which could allow some level of accountability for israeli war crimes additionally it means they could have the possibility to join the international court of justice as a member as a state in which case they could do what countries do in the international court of justice all the time bring a lawsuit against another country in this case the state of palestine could sue the state of israel for its illegal occupation the u. doesn't deserve its nobel peace prize that is according to several former winners who are demanding the block is stripped the award they have written to the foundation saying the e.u. doesn't fit with the prizes values and the committee has lost its found his vision r.t. sarah firth he explains. in that letter they said that the twenty seven nation blocks getting this award contradicts the valley's safety ated with the pricing was a once already happening is the one point seeing million dollar prize money not be awarded this year and they all say said the clearly not one of the champions of peace a consensus here among signatures and indeed among many many people when this award was announced it was really the awarding of the pri

of going to join either the international criminal court which could allow some level of accountability for israeli war crimes additionally it means they could have the possibility to join the international court of justice as a member. as a state in which case they could do what countries do in the international court of justice all the time bring a lawsuit against another country in this case the state of palestine could sue the state of israel for its illegal occupation. fellow nobel peace prize laureates. to stand side by side with past witness several previous recipients of rock is stripped of the award as the values as its values don't fit with what alfred nobel had in mind that is ahead for you plus the u.s. closed door to high innovators from abroad despite previously spearheading the country's digital revolution this coming up after a short break. it's perched atop a jar and the view from the kremlin stretches as far as the eye can see. for a city that chilled all of siberia for centuries. it lost its economic importance even before it was bypassed by the chance siberian railway but the poles cremains a spiritual center. scenes like these are a yearly occurrence thousands of orthodox worshippers

themselves were supporters of the court now obviously we've seen some tensions emerge between the african union and the international criminal court the african union has argued that justice actually can be in impediment to some type of peaceful resolution. we've seen members of the african union or urged the i.c.c. to dismiss charges against omar bashir the president of sudan but the fact that the african nation is that a tension has emerged and doesn't necessarily impugn the quality of the justice. that the i.c.c. is dispensing what i think it does it redoubles the necessity for the i.c.c. to emerge as a court which deals with. human rights abuses in war crimes in theatres all over the world not simply those in africa but at the foot aren't there you see it moving in that direction studies racial and if you're not against it it's going in that direction that all any evidence. well i think the evidence would be i mean right now we have ad hoc tribunals that were established to deal for example with. war crimes crimes against humanity genocide in the balkans if such an institution had not been created on the ad hoc basis by the un security council and had that kind of eve

to request that the international criminal court find that the boko haram has been responsible for these acts of violence. and what this means is that they are going to receive justice. hopefully the international criminal court will now take this to the next step, will take their investigative process to the point of actual indictments. the next step is to actually call up specific individuals as terrorists and designate them as terrorists. in fact, the united states earlier this summer, the united states department of state did designate three leaders of the boko haram as terrorists. unfortunately, the state department has not designated the boko haram as an organization as a foreign terrorist organization. we believe that still has to happen, and we are encouraging people to sign up with a petition to the white house, requesting that the boko haram be put on the foreign terrorist organization list. this is an organization responsible, in our count, this year alone, 1,317 civilians in nigeria have been killed by boko haram. no other country in the world has had that death toll of civilians, not even afghanistan. >> george: ann, let me jump in the few seconds we ha

international criminal court. none of this happens. this is why the credibility of the international justice system, which supports the international criminalourt, as a guardian of the international justice system -- it is at stake. this is why the swiss government -- they come up with an initiative which, until now, 40 countries signed this initiative. they called many members in africa, in europe, in the international community, to support and to call to arms the security council, to refer that crimes happened to the international criminal court. the second issue -- the necessary support to the situation on the ground, according to the syrians. as i said before, the gap from the international community and what is going on the ground -- we have to reconcile the and the syrians -- they do not call for humanitarian assistance. if they allow assad to stay in office, we are dealing with the symptoms, rather than the disease. if we just focus on humanitarian assistance, the next day, we have hundreds and thousands more refugees. we should deal with the disease itself. we have to support the free syrian army, and take actions to support the end

international impunity this is the stated goal of the i.c.c. the international criminal court but is it delivering impartial justice to the world the court supporters say after a decade in existence it's too early to say its detractors claim the i.c.c. is racist and hypocritical as well as a tool of the great powers. and. to cross-talk the i.c.c. today i'm joined by lawrence douglas and chickadee he is a professor of law jurisprudence and social thought at emerson college in boston we cross to william kaler he is a professor of international relations and history at boston university and in new york we cross to george samuel he is a fellow of the global policy institute of london metropolitan university are a gentleman cross talk rules in effect lawrence if i go to you first is the i.c.c. delivering impartial justice.

international impunity this is the stated goal of the i.c.c. the international criminal court but is it delivering impartial justice to the world the court supporters say after a decade in existence it's too early to say its detractors claim the i.c.c. is racist and hypocritical as well as a tool of the great powers. to cross-talk the i.c.c. to.

of the woman. most commentators now understand that that was a big mistake. it has caused ireland's international reputation to be damaged. it has led to a whole series of tragic cases. >> the european court of justice ruled that ireland's anti- abortion rules deny women their human rights and must be amended, but the catholic church still holds enormous sway. st. mary's cathedral in the center of dublin puts on five services every day. >> it is a catholic country, you see. that is the situation. >> completely against. only exceptional when the mother's life is at risk. no other time. >> a woman's life is in danger, you have women coming around just wanting abortions on demand. can babies? >> even among the faithful, there are those who reject the church position. >> i think women if they want to have an abortion, they should be allowed to have an abortion. >> i do not think the church should have a say in it. i really do not. it is the individual themselves to has to live with it. >> she has been motivated by the support she has received since she went public with her story. she says it is time for an open discussion. >> we are a country that never would discuss it ever. it was the biggest secret i

this one involves an international treaty and it is being argued in front of the u.s. supreme court. there is a lot to this. let me let our justiceer: aris chapin is a beautiful 5-year-old in the middle of a bitter custody battle between two parents at the end of a rocky marriage. >> my daughter, she's my -- she's my sparkle. she's everything. she's everything for me. >> if my daughter returns to the united states, i believe i will never see her again. >> reporter: it is a complicated legal fight dealing with international borders and treaties and important enough that the u.s. supreme court has taken the case. the last time aris was in the u.s. her father shot this video of her, but now she lives in scotland, where her mother lynn is from. a federal judge ruled that lynn could legally take aris back to scotland, despite her father's objections. he says aris shouldn't be with her mother, because lynn has a drinking problem. >> i don't think that somebody with an issue, an alcohol issue like that, can take care of a child. definitely on their own. >> reporter: as evidence, jeff points to this 2010 police video where lynn was charg

-- that's both houses -- and the fisa court comes in addition to the extensive internal oversight of the implementation that's performed by the department of justice, the director of national intelligence and multiple i.g.'s. you know, there is a view of some that this country no longer needs to fear attack. i don't share that view, and i've asked the staff to compile arrests that have been made in the last four years in america on terrorist plots that have been stopped, and there are 100 arrests that have been made since 2009 and 2012. there have been 16 individuals arrests just this year alone. let me quickly just review what these plots were, and some of them come right from this program. the counterterrorism come and the information came right from this program. and again, if members want to see that, they can go and look in a classified manner. first of all, in november, a month ago, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists to use a weapon of mass destruction. that's ras alam m qui sa* and cheriam alam quisa. arrested by the f.b.i. in tphrar for conspiring -- in florida for conspiring to provide support and to use a weapon of mass

to a question about -- more internally focused -- you have expressed the desire to have a more unified court, thinking of a court as a whole rather than individual justices. fewer 5-4 decisions. if you look at the history of 5- 4 decisions of the court, which show a steady increase from 12% to 22%, where the number of dissents has stayed stable over that time, at about 18%, do you think those are a good metric for the court? how would you like to see more cohesion in the court, where have you come to a somewhat different view about these things? >> the first thing you need to do is get a good sense of statistics. i think most of these cases -- people who follow the court any serious way -- you think about are the sharply divided 5-4 cases that get a lot of political attention. most of our cases are unanimous. this past year, 44%, and that has gone pretty much around that number. if you take cases that were 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0, they are not too fuzzy about those cases. we come to a fairly broad agreement on 2/3 of our cases, and not all the 5-4 cases are as controversial as you think. among the cases we had last year was one asking when you overstate the bas

the justice department whether or not the court interpreted the effect of a nonself-execute bein--nonself-executing declaran this treaty, the court said, the united states ratified the international covenant on the express understanding that it was not self-executing. and so it did not create obligations enforceable in the federal courts. so the supreme court of the united states has held that the very standard being applied in this treaty -- that it's not self-executing -- means nobody who is a access to any court, there is no enforceable right against anybody in america created in this treaty. mr. inhofe: to answer the senator, i am not aware of the specific risch request and what kind of response it drew. i would only say this: it is important, mr. president, to understand that while the distinguished senator from massachusetts and i differ on most of these treaties, we had the same disagreement on the law of the sea treaty. the question is, i believe this infringes on our sovereignty. with that, i yield the floor. mr. kerry: mr. president, i yield five minutes to the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin