What greater interest are the signatories serving? Aren't these essentially the same states that had to be shamed into intervening in Bosnia during the slaughters being carried out by the Serbs this in their very midst>
They are serving the interests of justice.
We too claim to be serving the interests of justice. Whose claim has more merit? How do you decide that? There was a degree of international justice before the ICC, and I have as yet seen no basis on which to conclude that the ICC will add something that isn'r already there.
Whose reluctance to try criminals who have committed crimes against humanity - that is apart from the rather ridiculous vagueness of the new statute itself?
I agree that they have been reluctant to try war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity, and I believe that they would be more likely to refer such cases to an international tribunal than risk the practical and political consequences of a prosecution within their own judicial systems. But then I already made that point in a previous post. I guess you missed that.
I didn't miss the point. I just don't give it any value. What practical and political consequences? Perhaps you are referring to the possibility of small, weak states afraid of trying an official of a large, powerful one. However merely the act of referring the case to the ICC would bring on whatever retribution might be forthcoming from the large state. Do you think the ICC will be an effective buffer? I don't.
Quote: georgeob1 wrote:
Name a single issue involving a serious crime against humanity whose resolution was delayed or impaired by the lack of a court in which to try an accused who was in the custody of the victim government. Just one will suffice.
That you would ask this question is an admission that you have either been ignoring my posts or have simply not understood them. As I mentioned before, the problem isn't with the lack of courts (nations already have universal jurisdiction over the crimes listed in the Rome Treaty), the problem is with a lack of will
on the part of states to prosecute the criminals.
Perhaps you missed points in my posts as well. I fully agree with you that the real problem here is the lack of will - on the part of small and large, powerful countries as well - to deal with crimes against humanity at all, much less prosecute those responsible. This was amply demonstrated after the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Thus my point that the ICC is a remedy for a non-existent problem. It won't create the will that doesn't exist, but it will create an illusion that something beneficial has been done. My experience of life is that such illusions delay the application of real solutions - they do harm.
In what way is an accumulation of nations a source of greater legitimacy than just one whose people have suffered crimes?
Why were there four judges at the Nuremberg trials rather than just one?
Nuremberg was merely an application of victor's justice. There were four justices only to placate the mutual suspicions of the victors. That feature added no justice and overall little justice was done at Nuremberg. The court prosecuted only the losers - it made no attempt to apply the same standards of law and justice to the winners. It is hardly a good model for what you are undertaking to defend.
Quote: georgeob1 wrote:
Does the UN General Assembly posses more legitimacy than (say) Canada, or the United States? I think its track record suggests it offers substantially less.
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how misinformed.
Clearly our opinions differ, and those differences are arguable. However please don't characterize my views as "misinformed". I know well whom the General Assembly has appointed to UN commissions on human rights and other matters and I see very little legitimacy in these actions.
You offer only sophistry and rationalization.
In this forum, there often comes a time during a discussion where one of the participants says, in effect: "Your puny logic is no match for my strongly held beliefs." In this particular case, that participant is you and that time is now. Given your appalling lack of familiarity with my posts, I don't see much reason to continue responding to yours. I'll leave you, then, undisturbed in the complacent comfort of your strongly held beliefs.
Well my phrase "only sophistry" was excessive: "some isolated instances of sophistry" would have been more accurate. Same, however goes for your "appalling lack of familiarity
". I missed a detail here and there, but in fact read and understood your posts quite well.
We do disagree about a lot here, but it really comes down to a few basic points. (1) Is the UN and the organizations created in association with it a fit nucleus for the rapid growth of international law and the processes for administering - but not enforcing - it? (2) Given the lack of either the means or the will among nations to enforce international law, is it wise for us to promote any added means for administering it at all, considering that unenforced law is a threat to all law? (3) A principal tenant evident in the statements and actions of our former European allies is that the now unchallenged power of the United States is a more serious problem than others, such as unrest in the former Ottoman Empire; poverty & disease and lack of political development in Africa; and nuclear proliferation. Is it wise or in the national interest of the United States to accommodate this principle, or should we resist its application at every turn? I believe it is on these points where our disagreement is born, not the arcane legal issues in the ICC.