It’s a fiction, a parody, a forgery. Courts consider law, and there is no law here to speak of — at least not in the way that we’d conceive of law in the United States and other useful places. In the coverage of this case, I keep seeing familiar words: “standing,” “ruling,” etc. None of them mean anything. For a court to be a court, it must be able to enforce its rulings. The International Court of Justice cannot. Those opinions, by their very nature, are just that: opinions. They are advisory, theoretical, abstract.

[Exactly. I don’t want to excerpt any more from Charles’ brief but incisive commentary, but let’s keep this front and center while the media fulminates over its ‘ruling’ today. — Ed]