What The World Thinks of America (BBC program)

georgeob, Good points all. How do we enforce those ICC rules on the bin Laden's of this world? They are the greatest terrorist threat in the world today. c.i.

0 Replies

Cicerone,

Thank you. Your very apt question of course brings to mind Aesop's skeptical mouse who asked the assembled convention which of them proposed to put the bell around the cat's neck.

0 Replies

george I saw quoted passages from the ICC that did contradict some of what you had stated. If you didn't see it I'll just leave it at that because it would be tedious (and, I suspect, futile) to quote them all.

But I do have one question. How can the ICC be both dangerous to the US because it could try us against our will and also useless because it can't try Chinese, for example, against their will?

0 Replies

Craven,

What I said was the ICC will be potentially troublesome to basically law abiding nations and useless in thwarting truly serious abuses by outlaw nations. We have already seen politically motivated suits against U.S. leaders under the similarly absurd Belgian law. As I pointed out the historical record of the effectiveness of international tribunals in combatting serious abuses such as those I cited is not good. No contradictin here.

0 Replies

I see great dissimilarity between Belgium and the ICC. In any case I don't want to do the research that would be needed to illustrate that.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

That's a silly argument.

Here is how it works:

A calls b, c, d, and e "left".

b = thinks America should not invade any nation it pleases
c = thinks some cases are warranted others are not
d = thinks America should get off its ass and go to Liberia
e = thinks America should mind it's own business.

A decides that his generalizations about political affiliation should fit neatly into logic and that taking conveniently selected samplings of individual rhetoric will illustrate that the group (that A makes arbitrarily) is inconsistent.

Craven - One problem with your analysis... I didn't make any of the statements you attribute to me above. So, while your comments make perfect sense within themselves, they have no bearing on mine. The complaint to which I replied was that the US is wrong not to listen to those who tell us what to do. My response went to that general statement. Of course there are lots of grey areas of opinion and specific cases. So what? My point remains that lots of people complain about the US pushing its influence on other nations and then turn around and complain that we refuse to be influenced by them. You are focusing on current issues, I'm thinking in historical terms.

0 Replies

I know, thing is this is a paradox that ultimately results in nobody being able to disagree. I'll explain later.

0 Replies

Just digging up some of the scarce "research" in my posts on this Roundtable thread, from which Craven pasted in the above ... (you're welcome to join, btw):

georgeob1 wrote:

The ICC judges have no accountability to any international body other than the signatories themselves.

Wrong. "[T]he United Nations Security Council can adopt a resolution to stop any ICC investigation" - to stop it or even to prevent it from being commenced, in fact. Such a resolution is valid for a year, but renewable without limit.

As Article 16 of the Rome Statute states: "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."

Vice versa, according to Article 53, "At the request of [..] the Security Council [..], the Pre-Trial Chamber may review a decision of the Prosecutor [..] not to proceed and may request the Prosecutor to reconsider that decision."

georgeob1 wrote:

The signatories of the treaty claim its terms apply to all nations regardless of whether or not they sign.

Kinda wrong. "[T]he ICC may [..] "exercise its jurisdiction only if either the State on the territory of which the suspected crime occurred (State of territoriality), or the State of which the person suspected of having committed the crime is a national (State of nationality of the suspected person), is a State Party to the Statute".

I.e. - the mere existence of the ICC doesnt mean that the UN police can come pick up Americans in their own country and try them in The Hague. If the US doesn't ratify the Rome Statute, no act committed by its own citizens on its own territory can be taken into consideration by the ICC, no matter how pernicious."

That is on top of the ICC's principle of complementarity - i.e.:

"f a U.S. citizen were accused of a crime, the court's judges would be obliged, upon request, to defer to U.S. justice, standing down for at least six months while the United States pursued its own investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution. After that period, the judges would be able to authorize investigations only if they decided that the U.S. judicial system was willfully obstructing justice [..]. Any indictment would also require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges."

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

This includes, among other things, any action that can be interpreted as offending the dignity of the alleged victims.

You refer here to Article 8, 2 b (xxi), which, outlining the jurisdiction of the Court, specifies it a little more:

Quote:

"[Art 8] The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. [..] [2] "War crimes" means: [.. amongst many other things ..] Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: [..] [xxi] Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".

I.e. - "outrages upon personal dignity" can be prosecuted if,

* constituting a "serious violation of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law",

* in particular, when "committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes",

* the act has taken place on the territory of a signatory country or against a citizen of a signatory country,

* one of the signatory countries or the UN Security Council has presented the case to the ICC, or the Prosecutor himself proposes to initiate investigations (individual citizens or organisations apparently can not 'start procedures' through the ICC),

* the pre-trial Chamber of Judges authorizes the commencement of the case,

* the country of whom the accused is a citizens refuses to pursue its own investigation (whether or not it decides to prosecute on the basis of its investigation is irrelevant; just investigating it is enough to withhold the ICC from intervening) or is deemed, after six months, to have willfully obstructing justice in its investigation of the case,

* neither the assembly of signature countries nor the UN Security Council decides to order the ICC not to commence the case,

... yes, that is correct.

<smiles>

0 Replies

Nimh,

Good points all. However the discretion and exercise of judgement in all of the areas you cited is left to the sole discretion of the ICC. The fact that the Security Council can (subject to the veto of any permanent member) block ICC action for a year - even with the option to do it again - hardly amounts to political accountability for the actions of this supra-national court.

Governments representing 80% of the population of the world have rejected this treaty. Despite this, its proponents claim universal jurisdiction for it and, at the same time, tout themselves as defenders of legal process and principle ! Remarkable.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The fact that the Security Council can (subject to the veto of any permanent member) block ICC action for a year - even with the option to do it again

In fact, the SC members have no veto rights in this case (because it is a Chpt VII resolution?). Dunno if that makes it better or worse for you.

It means that one veto-wielding country can not stop the SC from suspending an ICC prosecution. If the ICC is prosecuting a Taiwanese citizen and the SC members deem it wrong, it can vote for the prosecution to stop, even if China would like it to go on.

But conversely, of course, if an ICC prosecutor ceases a case and the UN SC votes to request him to reconsider, a single veto-wielding country can't stop that, either.

georgeob1 wrote:

Governments representing 80% of the population of the world have rejected this treaty. Despite this, its proponents claim universal jurisdiction for it

I think the point is that they do not claim universal jurisdiction, or do I misunderstand the term? They declare the authority of the ICC valid only when it concerns their citizens or their territory, not outside those parameters.

As for 80% ... I've noticed that people tend to switch between referring to the number of countries and their population weight, depending on whatever works best for their argument ... as soon as you have China, India and Russia against you, you're pretty much losing the population claims, anyway. 92 countries have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Out of them 38 are from Europe, 22 from Africa, 18 from Latin America and the Caribbean, 12 from Asia and the Pacific.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Governments representing 80% of the population of the world have rejected this treaty. Despite this, its proponents claim universal jurisdiction for it and, at the same time, tout themselves as defenders of legal process and principle ! Remarkable.

Quote:

As of 14 July 2003, 92 countries have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Out of them 22 are African Countries, 23 are from Europe (non EU countries), 18 are from Latin America and the Caribbean, 15 are EU member States, 12 are from Asia and the Pacific, 1 is from North America, 1 is from the Middle East.

Afghanistan
Albania
Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Canada
Central African Republic
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cyprus
Democratic Republic of Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
East Timor
Ecuador
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guinea
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Latvia
Lesotho
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malawi
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Mongolia
Namibia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Republic of Korea
Romania
Saint Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Zambia

I do admit that the most populated countries China, India, Russia and USA are not on this list with about 100 more (although most of the latter have signed the treaty).

I do have great doubts, however, that these 92 countries just make 20% of the world population.

Besides, from the legal point of view, population is no parameter at all.
[Or do you claim that to be a general "rule" ? Would be interesting, if applying to other international treaties/laws!]

0 Replies

Nimh,

I was not aware of the veto point. Thanks for correcting me. However I still believe that the ICC is not sufficiently subject to political control. I don't like the prospect of either myself or the officials of the government I have elected ever becoming subject to judges over whom I exercise no, even indirect, control. Perhaps our legal traditions are different in this matter.

I agree that many use the statistics that are convenient to their views (% of the population vs. % of the governments). However the fact that the most populous nations on the earth, notably including China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, The United States, and Russia, have all rejected this treaty surely counts for something. On a matter of law these governments should be presumed to speak for their people. If the fact was, instead, 55% of the world's population, I would not have raised the issue. However 80% cannot be ignored.

You imply that with Russia and China we are in bad company. Perhaps. However I believe that the major governments of Western Europe are in the grip of major denial and delusion. Certainly their track records over the last century don't inspire much confidence.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't like the prospect of either myself or the officials of the government I have elected ever becoming subject to judges over whom I exercise no, even indirect, control. Perhaps our legal traditions are different in this matter.

Well, you might be right about that: I (we) are really very, very glad that our judges are independend and not under whichever control of politicans or voters!

0 Replies

Neither are ours, Walter, don't take cheap shots. I had this discussion with our young German legal student friend at AFUZZ, Holger--appointment vs. election. It's a non-starter, as all judges in both the U.S. and Western Europe sit the bench se bene geserit; it matters little how they got there, once they're there.

I don't have a dog in this fight about the ICC, so i'm not here to comment on that. However, George wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps. However I believe that the major governments of Western Europe are in the grip of major denial and delusion. Certainly their track records over the last century don't inspire much confidence.

From my point of view, George is too kind by half. The major governments of Western Europe for many centuries have bickered to and over the brink of war, have brutally colonized and exploited populations outside Europe, and have lorded it over the seas. I'm never very impressed by the pronouncements of Europeans in general on political or diplomatic matters, precisely because they demonstrated for more than a millenium a breathtaking selfishness and incompetence in these arenas. I don't reject out of hand what any individual European thinks--in such cases, i simply apply to what they say exactly the same standards i use to judge what an American, Canadian or Mexican says.

0 Replies

Well, Setanta, I know, but I was referring to Geotge's

Quote:

I don't like the prospect of either myself or the officials of the government I have elected ever becoming subject to judges over whom I exercise no, even indirect, control.

0 Replies

I think that is a valid point, Walter, with the qualification that i'm speaking from my perspective, and cannot comment on what precisely George meant. Were the jurists of such a court serving se bene geserit, i'd want to know who determines what constitutes good conduct, on what standards, and who has the power to remove judges. What avenues of appeal would be available? I've already mentioned that i don't have a dog in this fight, but i thought i'd respond to your post, and note that the question of oversight of judicial oversight is a valid one.

0 Replies

While counting millions and millions of world population ... :wink:

Well, I do hope, no-one has the power to remove judges per se!

0 Replies

Walter,

There ARE differences in our legal traditions. I agree that either can work well or be abused, depending on the circumstances. Ours evolved (with some significant changes) from English Common Law. An important difference is that the first principle of our system is local political control, as opposed to a limited monarch.

Itis simply a fact that the essence of the ICC flies in the face of our system. There is no reason for us to accept it, no matter what the citizens of France, Germany, Liechtenstein and Andorra may think. It is at best presumptious of them to assert that we must - even though our elected government has said NO.

0 Replies

I would also note here that when first i read of this bruhaha, the first thing which occurred to me is that this would require a treaty, that two-thirds of our Senate is required to approve any treaty, and that in this case, it ain'ta gonna happen. So i've not followed the subject since, as it is a moot discussion.

0 Replies

What The World Thinks of America (BBC program)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know