Why Do we Need an International Criminal Court?

[struggle4progress]

OVERVIEW ...

Why Do we Need an International Criminal Court? ...

... To end impunity

"A person stands a better chance of being tried and judged for killing one human being than for killing 100,000." -- José Ayala Lasso, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

The Judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal stated that "crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced" -- establishing the principle of individual criminal accountability for all who commit such acts as a cornerstone of international criminal law ...

... To take over when national criminal justice institutions are unwilling or unable to act

"Crimes under international law by their very nature often require the direct or indirect participation of a number of individuals at least some of whom are in positions of governmental authority or military command." -- Report of the International Law Commission, 1996

Nations agree that criminals should normally be brought to justice by national institutions. But in times of conflict, whether internal or international, such national institutions are often either unwilling or unable to act ...

... To deter future war criminals

"From now on, all potential warlords must know that, depending on how a conflict develops, there might be established an international tribunal before which those will be brought who violate the laws of war and humanitarian law. . . . Everyone must now be presumed to know the contents of the most basic provisions of international criminal law; the defence that the suspects were not aware of the law will not be permissible." -- Hans Corell, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs

... Once it is clear that the international community will no longer tolerate such monstrous acts without assigning responsibility and meting outappropriate punishment -- to heads of State and commanding officers as well as to the lowliest soldiers in the field or militia recruits -- it is hoped that those who would incite a genocide; embark on a campaign of ethnic cleansing; murder, rape and brutalize civilians caught in an armed conflict; or use children for barbarous medical experiments will no longer find willing helpers ...

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/general/overview.htm

... United States’ President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute on December 31 December 2000, the last day that it was open for signature. Shortly after the Bush Administration entered office and just before the 1 July 2002 entry into force of the Rome Statute, US President George W. Bush “nullified” the Clinton signature on 6 May 2002, alleging that the United States would no longer be involved in the ICC process and that it did not consider itself as having any legal obligations under the treaty. The legality of such a “nullification” is unclear and the subject of debate by international legal scholars. Since 2002, the Bush Administration has undertaken a policy of active opposition to the Court through a global campaign to obtain immunity from ICC jurisdiction ...

http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=region&idureg=4

[damntexdem]

1. The real question isn't why we need it. It's why we don't have it.

If the Admin doesn't want to prosecute Bushistas, they should be willing to render them to the ICC. Now there's some rendition I could get behind.

[struggle4progress]

18. We don't have it because some folk dion't believe in accountability

[Zywiec]

2. How does this fit within the framework of our constitution?

Should this take precedence over our laws?

Just a couple of things that came to mind.

[iverglas]

4. have you tried to answer those questions?

Are there particular concerns in relation to your Constitution and your laws that you have in mind?

[Zywiec]

11. I haven't looked too extensively, but can think of one thing

that comes to mind:

- A trial by a jury of your peers

How would this work in the ICC? Would the jury be selected from Americans?

I'm sure there could be other Constitutional concerns that I'll have to take a look at before making up my mind.

[iverglas]

12. the thing here is

The ICC would only be trying US citizens if the US refused to prosecute them.

The US has effective laws for charging and prosecuting people for war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, the subject matter that the ICC deals with.

Anyone who preferred to be tried in a US court could probably arrange it. ;)

There are no juries on the ICC, you probably know. There are panels of judges from a number of countries.


The text of the Rome Statute of the ICC, for ref:

http://www.un.org/children/conflict/keydocuments/english/romestatuteofthe7.html

[Zywiec]

13. If the US refuses to prosecute them

how would they get to the ICC?

Would there be an international force that would extradite them?

I'm pretty sure no sitting president would allow a predecessor to be extradited.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

[iverglas]

14. you're welcome to read the documents

There's lots of information and analysis on line. Not much point in embarking on a discussion of something without knowing anything about it.


I'm sorry to have to say it, but

Would there be an international force that would extradite them?

betrays the kind of lack of basic knowledge that it is sad to think public opinion is based on. When it comes to the ICC, I'm pretty sure it is just such notions that public opinion in the US is indeed based on.

Do please read up a bit. It's well worth it.

The international criminal justice system has its problems. They're just not what a lot of people imagine them to be.

[Zywiec]

15. Sorry I wasted your time.

Instead of making fun of my lack of knowledge, why not just enlighten me on how someone gets to the ICC if their own government won't send them?

:shrug:

[iverglas]

16. I tried hard not to make it sound like that

how someone gets to the ICC if their own government won't send them?

They don't.

Unless they are in another country already, or travel to another country.

It's a work in progress.

Many countries have their own national legislation to cover these situations. The US does, Canada does, European countries do. They often include an assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction: they will prosecute a citizen of any country for war crimes, crimes against humanity or the crime of genocide, no matter where it was committed -- if the individual is within their borders.

That's why there were attempts to prosecute Pinochet in the UK, for instance. They didn't have to turn him over to the ICC, because they have effective legislation there to cover it.

There have been calls for Bush to be charged and prosecuted while visiting Canada ...

But if a State Party doesn't surrender someone for whom the ICC issues a warrant, it's end of game. The State Party would be in violation of its obligations, and everybody would shake a finger at it.

That's evidently the bit that the US objects to, however.

It's interesting to note that accused Rwandan war criminals, for example, wanted to be tried by international tribunals rather than domestic courts. The death penalty is not available to international tribunals.


http://www.un.org/children/conflict/keydocuments/english/romestatuteofthe7.html

Article 14 Referral of a situation by a State Party

A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes.

As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation.


Article 15 Prosecutor

The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. ...


Article 58 Issuance by the Pre-Trial Chamber of a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear

... On the basis of the warrant of arrest, the Court may request the provisional arrest or the arrest and surrender of the person under Part 9.


Article 59 Arrest proceedings in the custodial State

A State Party which has received a request for provisional arrest or for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9. ...

[Posteritatis]

21. Where was he making fun of your lack of knowledge? (nt)

[Idealism]

6. International treaties are supposed to be binding as much so as national law

Supposed to be, being the key words.

[conscious evolution]

17. The Constitution allows

the ICC to have jurisdiction if it claims it.

Here is the relevant passage

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[man4allcats]

3. The world needs an International Criminal Court

because it has become abundantly clear that even a nation such as the United States with a long democratic tradition is unwilling to enforce justice by holding criminal leaders accountable for their crimes. We should be setting the bar not only for ourselves but other nations as well. If we are, we're setting it pretty damned low. Unfortunately, I expect the only way Bushco will see the inside of a courtroom is if that courtroom is inside the International Criminal Court. We just don't have the balls to do it ourselves.

[Dradcliff]

8. Problem that came to mind...

It seems that it would be a difficult task to pin charges on the leaders. They will hide behind the poeple lower than them. And as citizens we stand almost no chance of proving anything to anyone.

[man4allcats]

10. As citizens, we ARE

We The People, and our elected leaders are our representatives. We The People have an obligation to try, no matter the odds. Our elected representatives, both past AND present, seem to have forgotten that fact.

[iverglas]

5. it is particularly striking

That the US was a prime mover behind the Nuremburg trials, and has now repudiated the very concept behind those trials.

Plainly an example of self-interest (and also the interests of certain allies) over principle.

[Solly Mack]

7. The Nürnberg Tribunal is just so ...so...the past

Now it's "a few bad apples" that do it all.

Now it's divisive and harmful for a country to seek justice.

Now it's all about moving on and healing (or is that heeling?)

[cobalt1999]

9. I'm for it because it will effectively end the U.S. role of world policeman

Let's sign up, drop the role of being the enforcer, and slice the defense budget in half.

[Senator]

19. To Prosecute Bush For Illegally Trying To "Nullify" It

Clinton's signature on the treaty was no measly Executive Order that can be reversed. It's only our DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy that's been living under that pretense.

This is just another ongoing criminal conspiracy that Obama either refutes or make himself a party to.

Sorry, but like with torture, there is no stylish, post-partisany middle ground to hide in.

---

[Gregorian]

20. This is good to keep alive. People seem to be sleeping.

Americans don't realize the seriousness of the world. We play, THEY pay. And that is why 9/11 happened. And that gave Bush an excuse to fulfill his buddy's PNAC plans. But Americans all but slept. I don't think people realize just how bad world war one was. I don't think they have the slightest clue. A hundred million dead? Can anyone imagine that? So naturally we don't hold these criminals for the crimes they committed. We can't imagine.

We're paving the way for an even worse situation than World War Two. It may never happen, but that's taking a chance with hell.