1.9.1 Judicial Decisions
"The legal principle of stare decisis does not generally apply between international tribunals, i.e., customary international law does not require that one international tribunal follow the judicial precedent of another tribunal in dealing with questions of international law."

Here is a telling message. There are at least 2 possible meanings for the term stare decisis and two opposing systems which can apply either meaning. This is where the fine print, or the Devil in the Details is made obvious.

First at least 2 dictionary meanings of stare decisis

1. the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.
   "a doctrine of stare decisis"

2. Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.

"Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt. A benefit of this rigidity is that a court need not continuously reevaluate the legal underpinnings of past decisions and accepted doctrines. Moreover, proponents argue that the predictability afforded by the doctrine helps clarify constitutional rights for the public. Other commentators point out that courts and society only realize these benefits when decisions are published and made available. Thus, some scholars assert that stare decisis is harder to justify in cases involving secret opinions.

"The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents, and thus, reduces spending.

"Despite the legal stability afforded by stare decisis, it is not without negative externalities. Critics argue that the doctrine occasionally permits erroneous decisions to continue influencing the law and encumbers the legal system’s ability to quickly adapt to change.

"Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously."

Those meanings are on one side of things. Those meanings belong where they belong because they share the concept of falsely giving authority to a THING, to fraudulently make a THING accountable, and therefore by that falsehood a THING is responsible, and furthermore actual people who are responsible and are therefore accountable are immunized from accountability, because the THINK is in place of them, on purpose, so as to get away with accountability for those things that specific people are responsible for having done willfully.

The alternative meaning of stare decisis, or more appropriately the alternative meaning of precedent, is merely the function of human memory during the process of holding people in conflict to account for their responsibilities and their actions accountable to them alone.

As with other comments here the reader can apply the meanings to specific situations themselves, to test each case in their own authority, with a little work to find (discover) and they try an example case.

I'll offer one example. An Election Fraud case. And before The People's Representatives are placed an accuser and a defendant. The jurors are duty bound to avoid convicting an innocent man, which is a crime of consequence (actus reus: a guilty act, the jurors convict an innocent man, in fact), or if the Jurors knowingly convict an innocent man (malice aforethought, guilty mind, mens rea) then it is a willful crime accountable to those jurors in fact. The jurors are also duty bound (by precedent) to avoid letting a criminal get away with a crime unaccounted for, which is also a crime in fact (actus reus) or a willful crime in fact (mens rea) if they willfully, with malice aforethought, and with guilty minds, allow a treasonous election fraud criminal go free.

So there is the example of the use of memory (precedent) "to stand by things decided" and stand by things repeatedly reinforced through tests known as trials by jury, where each time the same things decided since Ancient Times continue to work in each successive case one after another for centuries upon centuries. Perhaps some one can be responsible for the thing decided along time ago, the first time it was decided.

Such as:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

What happens if, after centuries, someone decides to do unto others that which you would defend against if the same things were done to you? Who stands by that decision?

So you now have 2 meanings for stare decisis and the doctrie of precedent.

1. Dictatorial dictates dictated by dictators in the past and present, because they say so then, and now.
2. Accurate memory of the facts that mattered in the past can be useful in cases tried today and on into the future.

The two opposing forms of law, or opposing systems, where either of those meanings are useful to those using either system.

1. Summary JustUS, with Admiratly, Equity, Exchequer, Chancellery Kangaroo Debt Collection Court Systems will use the dictatorial meaning to suit the current case where the dictators feel the need to blame a thing for their responsibilities and their accountability. Blame it on someone or something else, if it is wrong, criminal, evil, and if it happens to be right, lawful, legal, moral, and good, then take credit for the just decision, to keep up appearances: "optics."

2. Common law, with private prosecutors, independent grand jurors, and independent trial jurors, accepting their duty bound responsibilities that all private prosecutors, independent grand jurors, and independent trial jurors stood by since Ancient Times, such as not allowing criminals to avoid accurate accountability and to not injure innocent people.

Returning to:

1.5.1 Traditional Conception of War Under International Law
"When treated as a legal concept, “war” has been associated with a State’s use of force to vindicate its rights (principally, its inherent right of self-defense) under international law."

Which possible cases of offensive (not self-defense) war is justified? This is a very important point to ponder at any level from one individual deciding to start a war with one other individual, to one family with a family government of some kind, deciding to start a war with one other individual, to the same family deciding by whatever means the family agrees to start a war with another family, and moving to larger groups such as cities, counties, states, or Legal Fictions like Corporations or Nation-States. If the same principles that apply to the individual are not applied to any sized collection of individuals, then why is that in any way justified?

The fundamental principle of all law is The Golden Rule (Mathew: 7:12) and therefore if it is not right for an individual to do unto others that which the individual would defend against were others to do the same thing, then why would that fundamental principle of law be set aside to "privilege" one group over another group?

An example I found that could turn something as black and white as is good and evil into something grey, and that example was termed Mourning War.

What about War for Profit, not survival? It is not necessary to go into the justification of War for Survival if the case at hand is not War for Survival, however, criminal frauds may attempt to fraudulently justify War for Profit by claiming that their War for Profit is instead a War for Survival, so it may be again very important to look into any grey area, such as Mourning War or War for Survival.

Now here:

1.6.3 Human Rights Treaties.
"Human rights treaties address primarily the obligations of governments with respect to the rights of individuals, including their own nationals. For example, governments must refrain from subjecting individuals to arbitrary detention, to arbitrary deprivation of life, or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

There are very serious and obvious problems associated with affixing blame to things, or assuming that things are responsible and accountable for decision making and executing any action whatsoever. The above quote from Law of War demonstrates this problem clearly if any example of any arbitrary criminal act is perpetrated by people upon people.

You can ignore this or use it, if you choose to use this instead of ignoring this, then pick any example of anything done to someone, or a group of people, by people whose excuse for doing what they did is that they were following orders from their fearless leader who presides over their Legal Fiction, or their Corporation, or their Church, or their Company, or their State, or their Empire, or their Moon made of cheese, or their Dog Sam.

1.5 “WAR” AS A LEGAL CONCEPT
1.5.1 Traditional Conception of War Under International Law.

“When treated as a legal concept, “war” has been associated with a State’s use of force to vindicate its rights (principally, its inherent right of self-defense) under international law.”

1.6 LAW OF WAR DISTINGUISHED FROM CERTAIN TOPICS
1.6.2 Arms Control.

“Similarly, the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits, inter alia, the development and stockpiling of chemical weapons, but it is also directly relevant to the law of war because it prohibits the use of chemical weapons in all circumstances.”

1.6.3 Human Rights Treaties.

“For example, governments must refrain from subjecting individuals to arbitrary detention, to arbitrary deprivation of life, or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”

“Law of war treaties generally do not provide for derogation because necessity is not a basis for derogating from law of war rules.”

Derogation defined at US LEGAL.com:
“Derogation is the partial repeal or abrogation of a law by a later act that limits its scope or impairs its utility and force. For example, statutes in derogation of common law are those statutes which effect a change in the common law. Common law is the system of deciding cases that originated in England and which was later adopted in the U.S.. Common law is based on precedent (legal principles developed in earlier case law) instead of statutory laws. It is the traditional law of an area or region created by judges when deciding individual disputes or cases. Common law changes over time.”

As can be already seen in the above messages there are two opposing forces (powers) struggling for the hearts and minds of people. The soul and the calculators of individuals. The moral part and the action part as people invent new things to do, new ways to act, resulting from their natural born moral compass, their conscience, and their conscious, calculating, self-aware, independent, mind.

A. Defense is the only morally justified use of individual and therefore collective violent force.

B. If it can be excused, exempted, allowed, financed, rationalized, justified, hidden, falsified, confused, distorted, demoralized, naturalized, funded, desensitized, propagated, instilled, injected, infused, won over, turned, or otherwise reasoned out, then aggressive violence – by whatever motive – will be chosen by the individual aggressor and the collective sum total of all the individual aggressors sharing the same excuse that pretends to absolve them of both responsibility and accountability for their criminal actions.

Which is it?

Which is your choice as an individual? Which side are you choosing to be on?

A clue in the above messages is not in the quotes from the so-called Law of (either defensive or offensive, moral or immoral, just or unjust, good or evil) War document, as far as I have just reported, rather the clue is in the “narrative” that is false, the “narrative” offered in the "dictionary" meaning of the word derogation.

Here:

“It is the traditional law of an area or region created by judges when deciding individual disputes or cases.”

The common law was, is, and will continue to be the law as determined by the best effort to represent the people as one unanimous whole group, as in of, by, and for the people themselves, not of, by, and for the elite, the special interests, the factions, the division of the whole by race, gender, religion, economic value, productive capacity, or political power. In the common law, which is The Ancient Law, which is the Law of The Land (Legem Terrae in Latin), jurors decide if someone must be tried, or can be accused, or will face trial, or is exempt from trial (no probable cause found), and jurors decide the facts, and jurors decide the law, and jurors decide the sentence if remedy, redemption, or restitution is possible according to the unanimous decision of the jurors (who represent the people as a whole) or if instead the one found guilty by unanimous agreement is beyond redemption and is sentenced to a punishment according to the jurors best, unanimous, judgment.

The injection of a “judge” in place of a “jury” is the con game, and it is in your face.

A treasonous fraud can assume the absolute, arbitrary, power of a Legal Fiction Nation State, known as U.S.A. Inc., and no one, not even The President, can do anything about it. There is no Grand Jury formed, there is no Grand Jury investigation, there is no decision by the Grand Jurors, there is no presentment or indictment, there is no court date in a Court of Law, where the accused, treasonous fraud, faces The People who are represented by a Jury.

How about precedent?

Anyone care to know?