How independent is it really when the UN can stop a prosecution?
BTS
10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law?
by hamilcarr 202 Replies latest social current
-
-
hamilcarr
Again, a balance between dependance and cooperation:
In particular, the Relationship Agreement provides information on the manner in which Security Council referrals and requests for deferral are transmitted to the Court and the manner in which the ICC may inform the Security Council of a failure to cooperate with its requests.
The powers granted to the UN are necessary checks that prevent the ICC from being politically suspect.
Legally and functionally, though, both institutions are independent.
Added: checks that invalidate this critique by the US gov't:
We are also concerned that there are insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges.
-
BurnTheShips
The powers granted to the UN are necessary checks that prevent the ICC from being politically suspect.
What good is that if the UN is politically suspect and has the power to initate or stop prosecution?
-
hamilcarr
The powers granted to the UN
More precisely, the Security Council.
What's politically suspect about it?
-
BurnTheShips
What's politically suspect about it?
You can't be serious.
BTS
-
james_woods
I see that nobody (except my previous post) saw fit to comment yet on the cost/performance ratio.
80 M euros last year, 91 M euros this year, (which is half gone now), and still no court case prosecuted, and no court case won.
This is not very much bang for the buck, in my opinion. Even, and especially, people like Hamilcar and H_S who hanker for the political possibilities of the ICC must be deeply dissapointed by this record.
-
hillary_step
James,
Even, and especially, people like Hamilcar and H_S who hanker for the political possibilities of the ICC must be deeply dissapointed by this record.
If you had ever set up even a small organization you would be aware that the highests costs are front ended. We are talking about an International Court here, not a corner store!
The ICC is barely seventy-two months old. During that time it has established an international membership of over 106 conutries, set up offices in numerous countries, hired staff, formulated its primary legal manifestos, and had to pay out all the costs associated with a new business.
It has also successfully prosecuted twelve cases of war crimes and has numerous others on its books that it is building cases against. To have achieved all this in a matter of months is an incredible achievement, given the very onorous nature of its 'product'.
It is quite obvious that both yourself and Burn have a pre-concluded agenda that you are trying to force facts to fit. If sneering at the ICC will not work, false information might. The problem is that you are both completely ignorant of the subject (evidenced by Burn trying to 'learn' from the internet on the fly and falling flat on his arse in the process) and even at this late stage in the thread are grasping at straws.
The problem is that you were both defeated by the facts that I produced on the second page of this thread. Suck it up boys!
HS
-
hamilcarr
Even, and especially, people like Hamilcar and H_S who hanker for the political possibilities of the ICC must be deeply dissapointed by this record.
Actually not.
This report contains a list of significant achievements of each organ of the Court and the Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties for 2007. The report includes a breakdown of expenditure
1 by major programme and programme and a staffing table that details actual vs. budgeted staffing levels as requested by the Committee on Budget and Finance 2 (CBF). In addition, a detailed review of programme performance by section of the annual budget programme with reference to objectives, expected accomplishments, indicators of achievement and performance indicators is included as an annex.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/asp/ICC-ASP-7-8_English.pdf
Please report any financial anomaly...
-
quietlyleaving
had a little time so decided to do some research
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2005/1016schoolyard.htm
Schoolyard Bully Diplomacy
Niger is a land of thatch-roof mud huts and malnourished children, of whom one in four dies by the age of 5. It's the very least developed country in the world, according to the U.N., and lives here can be saved for pennies. It's also a rare Muslim country where everybody beams when I say I'm from the U.S.: people express a warm thanks for American assistance, and then ask eagerly if I know how they can get U.S. visas.So here we have a strongly pro-American democracy - yes, a beacon of democracy in Africa and the Muslim world - that is desperately needy, and what are we doing? Sadly, we're bullying Niger and dozens of other poor countries and cutting off some aid to many of them because of their support for the International Criminal Court. About 50 of the countries that support the International Criminal Court are unwilling or unable to give the U.S. the "bilateral immunity agreement" that Washington demands to prevent Americans from being prosecuted. Niger, for example, has determined that its Constitution does not allow it to grant the immunity agreement. So the Bush administration is cutting off certain military aid and "economic support funds" to a couple of dozen of these governments, mostly in Latin America and Africa. The main result has been to undermine our friends and confirm every prejudice that people abroad have about Americans as schoolyard bullies.
keep reading - a very informative article.
here is another one
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2005/0329usobstructs.htm
US Obstructs Global Justice
Los Angeles Times
March 29, 2005For most of its history, the United States was in the vanguard of setting democratic and humanitarian norms. People I spoke with during a recent trip to Nigeria took heart when I cited a national poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs: 69% of Americans support the ICC. The Bush administration should get in step with the American people, who understand that our failure to join the court puts us on the wrong side of history. It is time for the U.S. to reverse its stand, support the International Criminal Court and back the call to refer the gross human rights abuses in Darfur to The Hague.
Also the US has huge intelligence resources that it can bring into play to aid the prosecution of criminals. Also more transparancy regarding the ICCs activities, if it is seen to be necessary, is surely acheivable, amongst thinking rational people.
I don't think that one law for the whole world is feasible but I agree that each country should work with and develop its own justice system and when that system fails then an organisation like the ICC is very useful and should be supported.
ql
-
hamilcarr
I cited a national poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs: 69% of Americans support the ICC.
I'm very glad to hear this board doesn't reflect the US citizens' communis opinio.
Burn and James seem to represent a minority stance of the political elite alienated from its electorate.