| Quote: | |  | |
| International law is fine. But it should be adjudicated by national courts for themselves. It doesn't really work if we tried a case for another country, say Mongolia, with a court and judge in say Sweden. What do they know about life in Mongolia? In a way, that is what occurs in the ECJ, and even worse are signs of how the ECJ courts are being used for activism. Somewhat imperialistic. This offends people quite a bit. I would reject it. | |
| | |
The reason for a central court is to have consistency in judgements and a single source of reference.
The last thing you need is multiple conflicting interpretations of international laws.
In the same way there is a Supreme Court in the US to limit individual States from going off in weird directions like, for example, abortion laws.
In the case of the ECJ they adjudicate only EU laws; so only applies to countries within the EU jurisdiction.