10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law? (page 2)

BurnTheShips

BTW BTS just for record which continent has 3 countries in the 6 in terms of GDP ?

Not if you account for purchasing power parity, which is more realistic measure than the nominal rankings you cite.

But yes, off topic.

BTS

hillary_step

James,

but just for my own opinion on the U.S. - we still have a pretty bad taste in our mouth over some of the scandal, waste and corruption that has gone on in the United Nations

Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that if the USA, one of the very few, if only, Western nations not join were to become a member they would immediately become a target FOR the ICC regarding its human rights issues in Guantanamo and the erosion of its citizens liberties during the past eight years.

The United Nations is a completely different beast and cannot in any way be compared to the ICC. It is like comparing Sir John Gielgud to Tom Cruise....sure they are both actors...but....

HS

james_woods

Oh come now, Hillary Step - surely you cannot imagine that the United States would actually hesitate for one moment to submit itself to the judgement of well over 100 third world nations just because of our past experience in the U.N.?

BTW - I am curious as to which way you meant the actor analogy - I would assume that Sir John would be the U.N., while TomKitty would be the other?

also - did you notice that you called the U.N. a "beast" - those old habits die hard, don't they?

My point was that if the U.N. was largely ineffective in providing international order, then this new organization may not show itself to be any better.

hamilcarr

OK, I thought Hamilcar said today was the ten year anniversary.

A binding treaty for 5 years

On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were Iraq, Israel, Libya, the China, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. [22]
The Rome Statute became a binding treaty on 11 April 2002, when the number of countries that had ratified it reached 60. [4]

Nice bunch of aggressor states that voted against.

hillary_step

James,

also - did you notice that you called the U.N. a "beast" - those old habits die hard, don't they?

This is a very common expression in the UK used mostly by people who thankfully have never even heard, and certainly not cared about what the WTS thinks about anything, let alone who they call what!

My point was that if the U.N. was largely ineffective in providing international order, then this new organization may not show itself to be any better.

And my point is that your point is meaningless. You cannot compare the two organizations. All they have in common is the word 'international' being attached to them. The aims, ideals, structures, manifestos and operation are entirely different each other, therefore your comparison is frankly without worth, though it does show something interesting about how ones thinking on one issue clouds their judgement in others.This is especially dangerous politically as one can then become easy fodder for propaganda.

HS

BurnTheShips

You cannot compare the two organizations.

It seems to me that they are both organizations claiming universal jurisdiction but without any real power to back it up. Both are dependent on the member states to initate any force that is required to enforce that jurisdiction. Member states act in their own interest and without a higher force to bind them we remain in a Clausewitzian world. To think otherwise is an illusion, IMHO. The subversion of the Iraq Oil for Food program is an example of this. That these states joined the ICC is no more altruistic an action than the ones that did not.

BTS

hillary_step

Burn,

It seems to me that they are both organizations claiming universal jurisdiction but without any real power to back it up. Both are dependent on the member states to initate any force that is required to enforce that jurisdiction. Member states act in their own interest and without a higher force to bind them we remain in a Clausewitzian world. To think otherwise is an illusion, IMHO. The subversion of the Iraq Oil for Food program is an example of this. That these states joined the ICC is no more altruistic an action than the ones that did not.

Think about the higher forces binding the UN. It is a real, enforcable and historically enforced power. You seem to have an almost complete ignorance of the long history of the UN, which has its low moments as well as high ones. If one country misbehaves, the other nations will apply presure of numerous sorts to bear. You seem to have swallowed the 'toothless dog' fantasy regarding the UN, which is generally based on ignorance.

The comparisons that you try to draw between the ICC and the UN show that you do not understand the structure, aims, manifesto, and realities of either. The only thing they have in common, as I have already stated a number of times, and which you yourself acknowledge, is its international flavor. the ICC works through local law enforcement, local courts, local lawyers. It does not have an army or warehouses full of grain. It does not need them as its aims are completely different to that of the UN. Its only interest is legality.

What's up Burn, fed up with Wikipedia?

HS

james_woods

Hillary, good morning. I really could not let this one go:

And my point is that your point is meaningless. You cannot compare the two organizations.

Ummmm - was it not you yourself that made an analogy (still unexplained) comparing the two organizations by similarity to the actors Tom Cruise and Sir John G.?

One point of deductive reasoning is to compare two things "seemingly" non-comparable, and in so doing to highlight the very important differences (or even similaraties) between the two.

One important similarity between this ICC and UN that you have just confirmed - is that neither one of them has the inherent power of their own to influence national behavoir. Both are completely dependent on the signant states for their authority. As you say -

the ICC works through local law enforcement, local courts, local lawyers. It does not have an army or warehouses full of grain. It does not need them as its aims are completely different to that of the UN. Its only interest is legality.

In this, I think, we can find the "meaningful" point that our friend BTS was trying to make.

The Tiger has no teeth. Neither does his distant relative, the little KittyKat.

James

hillary_step

James,

I cannot believe that you are both straining the idea of comparison to breaking point to suit a non foundational logic. Why?

As I have noted, numerous times, the only thing these two organizations have in common is that they have an international membership. In every other way, structure, aims, purpose, reason, history, methodology, size, power, and in every other way imaginable, these organizations are completely different.

The Tiger has no teeth. Neither does his distant relative, the little KittyKat.

A absolutely ludicrous, in fact ignorant comment James.

The power exercised by the UN has over its lifetime saved the lives of millions of people. It has kept peace in nations. It has enforced regulations in others. Read about its history, not from the pages of the 'Awake', or from the mouth of a President with a pickled brain, but from unbiased sources.

Though the ICC has been set up with a completely different mandate than the UN, it to has already achieved some of its aims.

Shaking head.....

HS

james_woods

Not only that, Hillary, but the U.N. has also achieved the worthy goal of inspiring the only decent picture of a "fallen woman" ever published by the Watch Tower Society.

You know the one I mean - red slinky dress, cleavages and all, and the elegantly casual Martini cocktail glass just about to spill, but not quite spilling. All the while riding the wild beast that an Oklahoma Rodeo Cowboy would have been deathly afraid of.

There was just something about the way she was looking at me...

Dammit, I too would have joined up and become an NGO.

10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law?

Share this