What The World Thinks of America (BBC program)

I overlooked this one. Not a small point. You say the ICC can bring a case against a "nation, or entity within that nation, or citizen of that nation".

But in all the texts I have thusfar read, there is only ever question of bringing a case against an individual person. I.e.:



If you find a specification of ICC jurisdiction over nations or entities, please let us know.

I'm more than happy to stipulate that the court only finds itself competent with regard to individuals. This still raises the farcical possibility of the court declaring that such and such an American citizen is a perpetrator of a crime within its competence in the territory of a signatory nation, and that the United States is unwilling to prosecute, and that therefore the court has competence to prosecute.

Farcical because the court will have no enforcement options. I cannot imagine even a pan-European coalition being sufficiently powerful to compel the United States to anything to which the Americans object. I revert to my pet quotation:

The rage of dreaming sheep.

Using US opposition to the court to justify US opposition to the court?

Yes, thats about it, filtered it down pretty much. That would be a possibility, after all the hurdles and safety checks and so on are taken - and if neither the collective of signatory countries nor the UN Security Council has blocked the process along the way.

To me, that sounds neither more nor less "farcical" than any national court declaring that this or that American citizen has perpetrated a crime on its country's territory, and bringing him to account for it (or striving to). Happens all the time, I think.

(On a more rhetorical aside from over here in Europe: yes, God forbid that anyone should ever compel the United States to do anything to which Americans might object ... The US government is fully in its right to force, say, Serbia to surrender Milosevic to the War Crimes tribunal, against the wish of both Serbia's president and public opinion, to strongarm the Kosovars into ditching their struggle for independence rather than autonomy for the time being, or to implement no-fly zones and sanctions until Saddam allows weapon inspectors in ... just to mention some random examples ... but God forbid the hypothetic case that anyone should ever compel the US to extradite a war criminal.)

Nimh,

I believe your choice of the conflagrations in the Balkans was a poor one with which to criticize the United States. The fact is that the different national sympathies of Germany for Croatia, Russia for Serbia, the manipulations of France with respect to Bosnia, and Italy's hopes and fears with respect to Slovenia and Albania (respectively), were the driving forces behind Europe's paralysis and hapless inaction during the early stages of the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" atrocities in the region. Had it not been for pressure from the United States, the much vaunted United Europe would have done nothing to stop rather serious crimes in its very midst. This is hardly a good example or model for the entities that now propose to enact laws for the whole world. Moreover it gives the lie to his not-very-subtle suggestion that there are American war criminals.

Unlike Setanta I am concerned about pressures from Europe through the ICC and the UN and directly to limit the actions of the United States. The fact is that Europe can and already has exerted significant political and public pressures on us. This is of course their right, but serious harm to our national interests has resulted. Europe is unwilling to maintain or deploy the military strength required to defend our collective interests, is also very quick to demand our help when it sees danger, but wishes to limit us to its feckless legalistic policies when only our interests are at stake. This is not the behavior of a friend, and in view of the history of the past century, is both vile and hypocritical.

George,

I *think* nimh wasn't criticizing the US for the action in the Balkans so much as the duplicity of taking those actions and at the same time decrying the mere notion of such a protocol.

And it is as fair to say that Europe would not have addressed the issue as it is to say the US would not have addressed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait had it not been for European (British) pressure.*

* In case that's unclear I consider neither a fair statement.

Don't be disingenuous--get your ironic jollies elsewhere. I'm outlining why i personally find the notion of the court's alleged authority farcical with respect to the United States. Your characterization is ridiculous--i'm not justifying U.S. objections, i'm just pointing out the most cogent objection to the court's alleged authority--that it has no enforcement power. Your remark here is part and parcel with Habibi's reaction to suggest that i am saying U.S. citizens are invulnerable to prosecution for actions outside the United States. Both in the United States, and outside the United States, American citizens are subject to the provisions of extradition treaties, and that has for generations been used to deal with allegations of criminal behavior on the part of United States citizens. Having now visited the ICC web site, i'm more than ever convinced that it is an irrelevancy. With extradition treaties in place, there is no need for it; in cases where there are no extradition treaties, it is either powerless to enforce its writs, or we have the specter of the bad old days when European powers used their navies and armies to enforce their wills upon weaker nations. The two of you may see the court as a good thing; as i've noted, i consider it farcical--and have said why.

Calm down Setanta, who died? You'll have to find someone else to get huffy with, my comment was as much directed at you as it was the collective arguments posited against the ICC.

You claim that the court has no enforcement power. I posit that if the US were to join league with the rest it would. For that reason, I consider the argument about the ability to enforce rulings to be inherent to the US compliance with the court. To me, decrying it's inability to enfore a ruling against the US is one of the main arguments toward the US signing on.

To avoid inculpability.

Now as to irrelevancy I have yet to see so much effort expended to decry an irrelevancy since.. well, since Israel started their "Arafat is irrelevant" campaign.

You read too much emotional reaction into what i've written, once again. I've never much liked your tone, as i'm sure you know, and it hasn't changed in this instance. I see no reason for the United States to join such an organization. The majority of nations in the world have not even reached a stage of political development which can be described as nationalism, and here's a proposal to create an extra-national authority and jurisdiction. I would be more loath to consider the specter of the United States reverting to gunboat diplomacy. I am sickened that our current administration is taking the might makes right path. There is no need for this body in the world as it is constituted today, and much reason to object to propping up a suspect authority with American muscle. Given that i've only once in my life described this non-court as an irrelevancy, i cannot accept any contention about "so much energy expended to decry" it. I've now expended that last energy i will devote to the European's latest "we wish we had the power we lost 60 years ago" effort.

Don't be disingenuous, get your argument fix elsewhere.

The reference to the energy expended to combat this court is a reference to the extensive work the US has done to undermine it. You should not assume everything is about you.

A pity you don't like my tone, an irony too.

Craven is absolutely right.

George, I absolutely and full-heartedly support(ed) the US pressure on Yugoslavia to surrender Milosevic to the War Crimes Tribunal - well, I would, as a proponent of such institutions of international justice. And I full-heartedly supported both the Kosovo war and the way the US forced a break-through in the Bosnian war - my only qualm was that they didnt do it earlier, and let themselves be pushed into despondency by "ancient ethnic hatreds of mountain warrior peoples" bull. And you're wholly right in your condemnation of the bewildering European impotency at the time.

Considering it wholly right to have pressured Serbia into extraditing its war criminal to international justice, I don't see why it would be such a "farcical" ambition to expect to be able to do the same with any other country, though, should an equivalent situation ever come to pass. That was indeed my point (thanks Craven).

Well, if we go back to the fundamentally idealistic motivation behind the idea of this court, it's to create a very first avenue of action that runs parallel to - and hopefully one day will supercede - the "might makes right path" - so thats kind of ironic.

As it is today, people can commit war crimes and crimes against humanity and walk off scot-free - as long as they make sure they win.

If I am a Patagistanian putschist commander, I have ten thousand of my own compatriots slaughtered, but I make sure I stay in power, there is no-one who will lay a finger on me. Extradition treaties between individual countries are irrelevant, because I only ever hurt my own people - and in this (old world) logic, "my own compatriots" truly does connotate a notion of property.

If I then invade neighbouring Uzmalia, and slaughter another ten thousand people there, but make sure I win the war, there is still noone who'll ever bring me to court. I've just subjugated the only country that could request my extradition - as long as I keep my country the stronger neighbour, I'm safe.

In fact, even if one day I will step down, but make sure to have a 'friendly' successor, I'm more likely to be feted as an "elder statesmen" abroad than to be arrested. I mean, what would they arrest me for? France has no right to sentence a Patagistanian for what he did to fellow Patagistanians or Uzmalians. I might have wanted to avoid Belgium in the past two years, thats about it.

Thats been the reality thus far. Now slowly things are changing. War Crimes Tribunals are prosecuting even former heads of state for what they did to their "own" subjects. A Spanish judge is trying to use the fate of individal Spanish nationals that were swept along in the Chilean and Argentinian terror to bring Pinochet and his like to account. And now expanding ratification of the ICC offers a long-term chance to stop the impunity vis-a-vis those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Even distinctly Uzmalia-esque countries have signed, after all.

You may not be able to go get that Patagistanian putschist by gunboat, but if he can be arrested as soon as he enters any of the signatory countries, his life is going to be a hell of a lot more difficult - and one day, he might well just give in, like so many Serbs and Croats are doing now to the ICTY.

The American conservatives object. You object, George. But what is your alternative when it comes to me, the Patagistanian putschist mass murderer? Continued impunity in the name of, thats just the way things work in this world? Shouldnt we have learnt from that bloodiest century of all, the twentieth?

(Damn, and now I got all big-gestured and passionate. I swear I dont know how I'll end a post when I start one ;-)

nimh you touched on an irony so blatant that I couldn't have referenced it nicely and made a rare choice toward discretion.

The codification of justice is precisely to thwart the notion that might makes right.

The ICC can become a useful tool in the gradual move toward a level of Global justice that we traditionally only see on national levels (and first world national levels at that).

If this court can survive the American onslaught it holds much promise.

As it stands it is my favorite global institution (along with the WTO). It's a move toward a standardized system of dispute resolution and formal recognition (intead of scattered platitudes) of fundamental human rights.

(Had to edit my post above, actually. In all my passion I'd left a hole as big as a football in the metaphor's logic. Now it says what I want it to say, though. And yeh, I agree, Craven.)

Nimh,

I recall clearly that our government wanted Mislovich out of Serbia in the worst way. Moreover, except for the British, we had experienced great difficulty in getting any meaningful action or support from our European allies who were the immediate neighbors of the unfortunate victims of Serbian aggression. I was not aware that we were the chief proponent of a third party trial. If so that may have been an error on our part.

The flaccid inaction of the European states in this matter gives the lie to their obsession with a formal legal solution to such issues. Laws are no substitute for balls. Here Setanta's argument is absolutely correct. The stunning example of European inaction to the grievous slaughter of innocents in their very midst proves beyond doubt that the ICC mechanism will offer no solution to problems that cannot already be easily solved by other means.

The legal paper shuffling you described in your example promises much mischief and distraction and significant misuse of the new mechanisms. This,coupled with the above-noted irrelevancy of the whole thing where serious issues are involved, shows that only trouble will result.

The notion of a "crusading" judge in the country of Francisco Franco harassing Augusto Pinochet of Chile, when his own country was fully capable of resolving this very complex political, moral and legal issue, is patently ludicrous. I am surprised that you don't see this.

Nihm, i would like to know how you intend to apprehend the Pataganistanian monster? U.S. G.I.'s, i'm sure. Irony? Yes, the irony is that you are not circumventing might makes right, you are enlisting the United States to provide the might necessary to enforce your conception of right. Yeah, that's ironic as hell.

I don't think it's as easy as ICC=Europe. It finds wide-spread support in Latin-America and Africa, too (though only tepid support in Asia). But perhaps that's not what you meant.

If you mean that institutions like the ICC can not stop wars like the Yugoslav wars, you are of course correct. Much like courts don't stop crime; the police does. The courts merely ensure justice is done after it brings the criminals to them. Doesnt "prove" that courts are irrelevant, or useless.



On second thought, better not get into Chile here. I seem to remember that you argued somewhere that Pinochet's putsch was a good and a necessary thing. (That would also mean, I'd guess, that "capably resolving the issue" to your mind would by definition not include any judicial verdict against the man.)



Ah ... to have a world power with balls who favours laws ...

That's all I want. <nods>

Set, I already answered that one:



What's your alternative? Let him be?

What lunacy it is to continue to avoid the issue of enforcement. All of your platitudes don't amount to a hill of beans at the end of the day, because the monster you want killed won't be killed unless and until someone lays it on the line.

Why am i not surprised that the world wants the United States to lay it on the line? The superpower they love to hate.