10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law? (page 6)

BurnTheShips

Long live the US govt!

I did not know you were a fan of the US government. Why do you like it so much?

BTS

hamilcarr

Maybe I should remind you of this opening post of a recent thread:

It is true that, in the United States, at least, we have a constitution that imposes strict limits on some powers of government. But, as we have discovered in the past century, no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government's own Supreme Court, then the inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue to place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for its own government. Furthermore, the highly touted "checks and balances" and "separation of powers" in the American government are flimsy indeed, since in the final analysis all of these divisions are part of the same government and are governed by the same set of rulers.

Not a single libertarian would like to rely on this aggressor for his/her security.

quietlyleaving

The United States government has as its duty the protection its citizens from extranational bodies that are not answerable to the people of the Unites States and whose political motivations could be suspect.

doesn't the wts say something like that too but only regarding those who have positions of authority?

I fail to see what this has to do with my comments here. I am speaking of affairs as they are and not as I would perhaps have them: i.e. we live in a world with nation-states. That being the case, my quoting a dissenting opinion to the status quo on a completely different thread has no bearing to the way things are now; that the ICC is not answerable to the people of the United States, that submitting the citizens of the United States to the jurisdiction of this body (which is what ratification of the treaty would mean) is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, that the power of government--which includes the power to exact justice--is rooted in the consent of the governed, and many other reasons besides.

BTS

BurnTheShips

Has anyone actually read any of the ICC statutes? In theory, the ICC would only act when the US (or any) court system fails to fulfill its legal responsibilities with respect to certain crimes.The ICC Statute states that the court "is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. It is not intended to supersede their jurisdiction. It will act only when the national jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to genuinely prosecute."

Who determines if a national jurisdiction is "unable or unwilling to genuinely prosecute?" Here is where the logic completely breaks down! If, on the one hand, the ICC cannot go over the heads of national courts, a country that does not want its soldiers prosecuted for crimes by the ICC needs only to have a kangaroo court where these people will be acquitted. If that is in fact the case, that these crimes will go unpunished, what exactly is the point of the ICC? The other hand is that if the ICC actually does get to make trials by national courts null and void by deciding what constitutes an "unable" or "unwilling" state, then the ICC will exercise a power of judicial review over national criminal justice systems. The defacto supreme judge will be the ICC!

BTS

james_woods

Good God! Why is this so hard to get a simple answer?

Original poster titled thread "10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law?".

Later, H_S posted that it is "really only 5 years old".

So, I asked - which is it? Five years or Ten?

One reason I asked this simple question was that H_S also posted that the ICC has completed 12 criminal cases. I wondered if that was achieved in 5 years or in 10 years. Simple as that.

A second thought - I noticed that the so-called Bosnian butcher (the guy who ordered mortar shelling of civilian villages, the purge of the Serbians, etc.) finally got caught yesterday.

What court is going to try him?

hillary_step

James,

Good God! Why is this so hard to get a simple answer? So, I asked - which is it? Five years or Ten?

James, this question was answered on the first page of this thread. Look again. As I have already told you, the ICC was established late in 2002.

HS

james_woods

OK, I read the Wiki page on this. It appears that it is in fact, a little over six years old - established July 1st, 2002.

The confusion over the "ten years" would appear to be that the General Assembly of the United Nations convened a conference in June 1998 to begin discussions on creation of the ICC.

To date, the court has opened investications into four situations: Uganda, the Congo, Darfur, and the Central African Republic.

Arrest warrants have been issued for 12 persons - of these, 2 are dead, 6 are not accounted for, and 4 are in custody.

No trial has yet taken place - the first, a Thomas Lubanga, was scheduled for 23rd June, 2008, but the trial was halted on 13 June when the Judges ruled that the prosecutors had not revealed exculpatory evidence to the defense, thus breaching Lubanga's right to a fair trial.

It is interesting to note the financial report on this body - the court spent 80.5 million euros in 2007, and the budget for 2008 has been set at 90,382,100 euros. The staff consists of 485 persons from 80 states. The largest monetary contributor thus far has been Japan.

I think that these facts are quite interesting in view of some comments raised within this thread.

quietlyleaving

burn

Who determines if a national jurisdiction is "unable or unwilling to genuinely prosecute?" Here is where the logic completely breaks down! If, on the one hand, the ICC cannot go over the heads of national courts, a country that does not want its soldiers prosecuted for crimes by the ICC needs only to have a kangaroo court where these people will be acquitted. If that is in fact the case, that these crimes will go unpunished, what exactly is the point of the ICC? The other hand is that if the ICC actually does get to make trials by national courts null and void by deciding what constitutes an "unable" or "unwilling" state, then the ICC will exercise a power of judicial review over national criminal justice systems. The defacto supreme judge will be the ICC!
BTS

even I can see that you are drawing some very sweeping conclusions here. Regarding "kangaroo courts" acquitting the guilty - there will always be this sort of injustice and I'm sure the ICC recognises this but does that mean that there is no point to the ICC? People get away with crimes all the time does that invalidate the justice system?

Defacto supreme judge???? another sweeping conclusion - lol. One of the most useful lessons that I have learned since exiting the WTS is to recognise that there are degrees of everything. Black and white, either or thinking - out the window.

BurnTheShips

A closer examination of the facts.

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.

Membership means little. The ICC currently has cases before it regarding nationals of Sudan and Congo, neither of which has ratified this treaty.

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.

No. From the ICC Statute hosted at the United Nations Treaty website at http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm

The ICC is a creature of the UN, convened by the General Assembly.

The Court shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations through an agreement to be approved by the Assembly of States Parties to this Statute and thereafter concluded by the President of the Court on its behalf.

The UN Security council may refer a case to the ICC under article 13:

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations

And article 16 states that the UN has the power to defer an investigation if it so chooses:

No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.

BTS

10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law?

Share this