In order for someone to be extradited, the matter is first heard in a United States Court of law. I assume you are referring to the prosecution of a person who committed a criminal act/capital offense against a person while outside the United States. That is not a comparison to a foreign entity having jurisdiction over a person whose legal squabbles concern something over which the foreign entity has no jurisdiction and no ownership.
Criminal laws of the United States do not afford de facto protections to U.S. citizens who commit murders or crimes while outside the United States, except for those already held for any U.S. citizen who is accused of committing a crime. All persons are afforded due process protections but must be held to account for their criminal acts, wherever those may occur. The United States does not have jurisdiction to prosecute criminals for acts that occurred outside of the United States.
In fact, travelers are warned that they will be subject to the laws of the country to which they travel for crimes they may commit while in that country. Due process requires that before a person can be extradite, the case must first be argued before U.S. authorities.
OTOH, the internet, which did not even exist in the 1960’s when the treaty was written, allegedly binds users of same over to the jurisdiction of the U.N. for arbitration and/or legal disputes. The internet, which is not owned by the U.N., which is not the property of the U.N., cannot legally be under the jurisdiction of the U.N.
Just because congress writes a law doesn’t make it constitutional.
If you think that a treaty signed by this government which cedes the people’s rights, protected by the Constitution, over to the U.N., in direct violation to the Constitution, is binding and legal, it’s obvious you believe in a “living Constitution”...but that is no constitution at all.
The Founding Fathers did not craft such a document for the purpose of removing the peoples’ rights and protections found therein to ultimately place them with a foreign country, much less a foreign entity, which holds no allegiance to the people of this country or this country’s sovereignty.
It is not the laws or the treaties to which one looks as what reigns supreme, it is the Constitution. Anything which violates Constitutional rights and protections is by definition un-Constitutional.
Pro globalists and one worlders should keep that in mind.
How is that any different from this? In order to get a WIPO decision enforced, one must first go to a US court who will then look at the law and when the law says the matter should be resolved by a binding decision of WIPO, then the judge refers the matter to WIPO to make that determination. When that decision comes back, the US judge then, under the US law and the signed and ratified treaty, relays said decision to the parties of the case whichever way it went. The judge rules, based on the decision of WIPO, and that judge's order is then enforced by the US judicial system.