Stardate 20010627.0506 (On Screen): In a ruling in a case brought by Germany against the state of Arizona, the World Court states that its rulings are binding on the US and the states which make up the US. I'm sorry, but the World Court is wrong. None of its rulings are binding on anyone. The whole point of the World Court has been influence and propaganda. People go to the World Court to try to get rulings which will embarass their opponents. Its rulings have never been binding on anyone, ever.
In this particular case, the only things which are binding on the state of Arizona are the US Constitution and the laws deriving from it, and the constitution of the state of Arizona and the laws deriving from that. I could set up a "Clueless Court" here in San Diego and start issuing court orders which included statements that they were binding, but that wouldn't "make it so". (discuss)
Update: The World Court also doesn't have the power to order delays of executions scheduled in the US.
Update: Apparently the legal theory behind the World Court's claim that its orders are binding is that they were issued under terms of an international treaty to which the US is a signatory. It is true that treaty obligations have the force of law in the US. But they do not have the force of the Constitution. The US Court system is chartered by the Constitution and its powers are described there. Congress can't usurp those powers with laws, including through treaties. Thus it remains the case that the World Court does not have the power to override court orders issued by US courts, whose powers come directly from the Constitution.
Update: More discussion on this here.
