NationStates Jolt Archive

Many a poster in many a thread seem to regard institutions such as the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice as an ultimate authority in the matters of international law. I read their posts and think to myself: what in the bloody hell...???

An American court's authority to judge an American citizen or a foreigner who committed a crime on American soil or against an American citizen is based on the authority granted to this court by the American people and their government, and it is to them that this court can be held accountable. The French court, similarly, stands on the authority granted to it by the people of France, and is accountable to them. But an International court? What is the source of its authority, pray tell? Where is the mechanism of ICC accountability- and to whom can it possibly be accountable?

There is none.

Any "international court" is a ghost court with imaginary powers, wide open to abuse due to the absence of accountability. In a saner world such a sadly misnamed anti-democratic entity wouldn't have the jurisdiction to rule even on domestic disputes, let alone political matters.

Ever heard of the Alien Tort Claims Act? Under which, i.e. a Palestinian citizen might seek compensation before a US court, because of damage done to him by a breach of an international treaty?

What is the source of authority there?

The US courts, especially federal ones, are the only part of the US government not accountable to the people.

The ICJ is a creature born of idealism, like the UN, but unfortunately deformed by ideology. Where the UN has crippled its ability to regulate through several decades of semi- or incompetent management, bad luck, and red tape, the ICJ was never going to be a court before which globally unpopular people could get fair trials.

I wouldn't mind seeing "my" President George W Bush and his administration tried before the ICJ, if there was any chance they'd get a fair trial. But there isn't. As long as fair trials are unavailable, I'll continue to support the ICJ as an ideal and deplore what it is right now.

Ever heard of the Alien Tort Claims Act? Under which, i.e. a Palestinian citizen might seek compensation before a US court, because of damage done to him by a breach of an international treaty?

What is the source of authority there?
None, of course. Such matters should be beyond US court's jurisdiction. But similarly, EVREYTHING should be beyond the ICC or ICJ's jurisdiction.

Any "international court" is a ghost court with imaginary powers, wide open to abuse due to the absence of accountability. In a saner world such a sadly misnamed anti-democratic entity wouldn't have the jurisdiction to rule even on domestic disputes, let alone political matters.

You seem quite ignorant of the court.

The ICJ is a creature born of idealism, like the UN, but unfortunately deformed by ideology. Where the UN has crippled its ability to regulate through several decades of semi- or incompetent management, bad luck, and red tape, the ICJ was never going to be a court before which globally unpopular people could get fair trials.

I wouldn't mind seeing "my" President George W Bush and his administration tried before the ICJ, if there was any chance they'd get a fair trial. But there isn't. As long as fair trials are unavailable, I'll continue to support the ICJ as an ideal and deplore what it is right now.

The ICJ != The ICC. They are completely different.

Many a poster in many a thread seem to regard institutions such as the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice as an ultimate authority in the matters of international law. I read their posts and think to myself: what in the bloody hell...???

An American court's authority to judge an American citizen or a foreigner who committed a crime on American soil or against an American citizen is based on the authority granted to this court by the American people and their government, and it is to them that this court can be held accountable. The French court, similarly, stands on the authority granted to it by the people of France, and is accountable to them. But an International court? What is the source of its authority, pray tell? Where is the mechanism of ICC accountability- and to whom can it possibly be accountable?

There is none.

Any "international court" is a ghost court with imaginary powers, wide open to abuse due to the absence of accountability. In a saner world such a sadly misnamed anti-democratic entity wouldn't have the jurisdiction to rule even on domestic disputes, let alone political matters.

Didn't the UN bring into existense mordern-day Israel? Don't we need International Courts to make rulings on international issues? Don't we want to live under a system of laws that all nations need to follow so that disputes can be solved in Courts of Law rather than on the battlefields of the world where innocent people are killed? Can't the nations of the world give the necessary authority to an International Court?

The US courts, especially federal ones, are the only part of the US government not accountable to the people.exactamente...

The US courts, especially federal ones, are the only part of the US government not accountable to the people.

Which people would you like the Courts accountable to?

Which people would you like the Courts accountable to?American courts?...To the American people.

first thing I would do is make it impossible for Judges to pick who is going to be President.

You seem quite ignorant of the court.
Do enlighten us.

Do enlighten us.

I wouldn't know where to start, as it seems by your "powerless, unaccountable ghost court" rhetoric that you know very little about the actual mandate of the ICC, its jurisdiction and the rules it has to abide by.

American courts?...To the American people.

first thing I would do is make it impossible for Judges to pick who is going to be President.

I understand your concern about Judges not picking the President. But how do you allow Judges to remain impartial if they have to always look over their backs to see who is watching them and the decisions they make. That is why at the Federal level they are appointed for life. So my question is again which group of people should they be held responsibe to--conservative or liberal, pro-life or pro-choice. The list can go on and on. Where will it end?

Didn't the UN bring into existense mordern-day Israel?
Nope. The UN merely gave a "birth certificate", but the "baby" wasn't theirs. Israel did not materialize overnight on the day of the UN vote, you know. It was there in all but the UN recognition, and if it wasn't recognized- to hell with it. There are dozens of nations out there, from Taiwan to Erithrea, that exist de-facto without being UN recognized.


Don't we need International Courts to make rulings on international issues?
Whatever for? And based on what authority?


Don't we want to live under a system of laws that all nations need to follow so that disputes can be solved in Courts of Law rather than on the battlefields of the world where innocent people are killed?
That, my friend, depends on what kind of laws and what kind of court we are talking about. A unified law system will only become possible in a unified world state, and I don't see it happening.


Can't the nations of the world give the necessary authority to an International Court?
How exactly? On what level should the consent be- popular vote of the people in each country of the world? Consent of governments, including dictators like Saddam, Mugabe and Castro?

I understand your concern about Judges not picking the President. But how do you allow Judges to remain impartial if they have to always look over their backs to see who is watching them and the decisions they make. That is why at the Federal level they are appointed for life. So my question is again which group of people should they be held responsibe to--conservative or liberal, pro-life or pro-choice. The list can go on and on. Where will it end?
Power without accountability inevitably results in corruption and abuse of power. You cannot buy impartiality in exchange for accountability.

Power without accountability inevitably results in corruption and abuse of power. You cannot buy impartiality in exchange for accountability.

Judges can be removed; the process is long and difficult, but it can be done. I just don't think electing federal judges would solve whatever problem you think exists. And you still didn't answer the question of who would the judges be held accountable to. Just saying the American people is not an answer because there too many groups that think they know want is best for all of us. That's why we have a Constitution and judges who make rulings based on their best understanding of that Constitution.

I understand your concern about Judges not picking the President. But how do you allow Judges to remain impartial if they have to always look over their backs to see who is watching them and the decisions they make.... So my question is again which group of people should they be held responsibe to--conservative or liberal, pro-life or pro-choice? they should be accountable to "the people"...like in "we the People"

when we go to the polls..We already have a number of referendums (on important issues)...

We should be able to give a confidence vote for the handpicked Supreme Court Judges.

Judges can be removed; the process is long and difficult, but it can be done. I just don't think electing federal judges would solve whatever problem you think exists.
Not necesserily electing; election does not always chooses better professionals. But the removal of judges should not be too "long and difficult". In any task related to power, there should be a two-way influence, otherwise you're asking for abuse.

they should be held responsible to "the people"...like in "we the People"

when we go to the polls..We already have a number of referendums (on important issues)...

We should be able to give a confidence vote for the handpicked Supreme Court Judges.

I think you are asking to vote on the choice that the Senate makes in appointing Supreme Court Judges? Right. I guess that would mean that those people who vote would make the decisions. With the low voter turnout we have in this country it would be about like it is now.

Not necesserily electing; election does not always chooses better professionals. But the removal of judges should not be too "long and difficult". In any task related to power, there should be a two-way influence, otherwise you're asking for abuse.

The two-way influence comes from the Senate that you elect. It seems that the federal judge system has less abuse that say the election process for President, Senate etc.

I understand your concern about Judges not picking the President. But how do you allow Judges to remain impartial if they have to always look over their backs to see who is watching them...?How do you keep them impartial without watching them?

there is no perfect method... But I think Judges should be accountable.

Judges can be removed; the process is long and difficult, but it can be done. I just don't think electing federal judges would solve whatever problem you think exists. And you still didn't answer the question of who would the judges be held accountable to. Just saying the American people is not an answer because there too many groups that think they know want is best for all of us. That's why we have a Constitution and judges who make rulings based on their best understanding of that Constitution.
Not to mention, federal judges are not accountable to the American people. They are appointed, not elected.

How do you keep them impartial without watching them?

there is no perfect method... But I think Judges should be accountable.

You appointment judges who believe in the Constitution and the process that has served this Country well for the past centuries. We have gone through difficult times before and survived. We will survive through this difficult time also.

I think you are asking to vote on the choice that the Senate makes in appointing Supreme Court Judges? .No, what I am saying is..

Let Bush(and the governing Party) Handpick whatever partisan moron he wants for Judge...

next Presidential election...We will be the Judge...and If "your-honor" is a dickhead...We get to dump his-honor's ass.

Not to mention, federal judges are not accountable to the American people. They are appointed, not elected.

There was a good reason the when the Constitution was put together that the Framers wanted Judges appointed and not elected. So that they could follow the Consitution and not the whims of popular opinion.

No, what I am saying is..

Let Bush(and the governing Party) Handpick whatever partisan moron he wants for Judge...

next Presidential election...We will be the Judge...and If "your honer" is a dickhead...We get to dump his honor's ass.

If you have enough votes that is.

Many a poster in many a thread seem to regard institutions such as the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice as an ultimate authority in the matters of international law. I read their posts and think to myself: what in the bloody hell...???

An American court's authority to judge an American citizen or a foreigner who committed a crime on American soil or against an American citizen is based on the authority granted to this court by the American people and their government, and it is to them that this court can be held accountable. The French court, similarly, stands on the authority granted to it by the people of France, and is accountable to them. But an International court? What is the source of its authority, pray tell? Where is the mechanism of ICC accountability- and to whom can it possibly be accountable?

There is none.

Any "international court" is a ghost court with imaginary powers, wide open to abuse due to the absence of accountability. In a saner world such a sadly misnamed anti-democratic entity wouldn't have the jurisdiction to rule even on domestic disputes, let alone political matters.


There is none??? Who are you, an opinion maker?

An International Court is useful to judge criminals like Saddam or Bush. And its power is OVER the one of the states.

And it is useful.
And it is liked throughout the world.

Only fear of it some dictators. And the USA.


**Edited:

-I forgot: Sharon fears it, too!!! Things like Shabra & Shatila are always present!

So that they could follow the Consitution and not the whims of popular opinion.What a joke...

They are not following the whims of the People...They are following the whims of the Political party that handpicked them(Bush party)...and to other Interest groups that helped them get the seat.

have you seen how good the Drug companies are doing in court lately?...and what about the Oill companies?

What a joke...

They are not following the whims of the People...They are following the whims of the Republican party.

That may or may not be true. But your solution is to have them elected by the people. I wonder how many Supreme Court decisions regarding Jim Crow laws in the south in the 50's and 60's would not have been made if the people elected the Supreme Court.

But your solution is to have them elected by the people.No.

My solution is to have them Handpicked by The Moron-in-chief...and held accountable to the People...some 4-8 years later.

as an otpion on the Presidential polls...

No.

My solution is to have them Handpicked by The Moron-in-chief...and held accountable to the People...some 4-8 years later.

as an otpion on the Presidential polls...

So then the peope who voted would remove them and then the moron would appoint new judges?

from my understanding, each signing member first gets the chance to
bring alleged perpetrators to their own courts for crimes against humanity,
war crimes, etc...
If this is not done, or it is clearly a sham, then the ICC kicks in.



They (the media/opponents in the US) never tell us that each country gets the first chance to clear out their own garage.

If the US signed & ratified a treaty, as per its constitution, it would be bound
by its constitution to adhere to it.
I believe the elected senate are the ones responsible to ratify treaties.
So through those elected officials.
The US constitution does not explain exactly how to get out of a treaty,
but its no stretch to assume that it would be the same process as
getting into one, via senate vote. if the treaty itself did not state a way,
as some do.

from my understanding, each signing member first gets the chance to
bring alleged perpetrators to their own courts for crimes against humanity,
war crimes, etc...
If this is not done, or it is clearly a sham, then the ICC kicks in.



They (the media/opponents in the US) never tell us that each country gets the first chance to clear out their own garage.

If the US signed & ratified a treaty, as per its constitution, it would be bound
by its constitution to adhere to it.
I believe the elected senate are the ones responsible to ratify treaties.
So through those elected officials.
The US constitution does not explain exactly how to get out of a treaty,
but its no stretch to assume that it would be the same process as
getting into one, via senate vote. if the treaty itself did not state a way,
as some do.

As I understand it you have it right at least in the general principle. It will need some fine tuning at some point. But the need for international laws and courts is clear to anyone who believes in we live on one planet and not seperate countries.

So then the peope who voted would remove them and then the moron would appoint new judges?like you said...people would bother to recall a Judge.. only If the Judge was a real dickhead...and yes a new Moron would get to handpick.

unless the Dickhead get recalled at the first round...then it could be the same Moron...handpicking a new Dickhead.

(in case you just changed channels :) ...Moron=President ; Dickhead=Supreme Judge)

Believe as you wish, but to my mind any country that doesn't join the ICC is simply because they have something to hide or are "worried" that their crimes will be punished. Seems to me the only countries not joining or haven't joined are the ones with a lot of blood on their hands.

like you said people would bother to recall a Judge.. only If the Judge was a real dickhead...and yes a new Moron would get to handpick.

unless the Dickhead get recalled at the first round...then it could be the same Moron...handpicking a new Dickhead.

(in case you just changed channels :) ...Moron=President ; Dickhead=Supreme Judge)

I was following your code just fine. I understand what you are saying; I just believe that the system we have is a better system and protects the judges from the whims of very fickle public opinion. The system we have today allowed Judges to make very unpopular decisions regarding birth control, school systems, Jim Crow laws, election laws. Just because you don't like the new Supreme Court judges/judge is not a good reason to change the Constitution.

Gotta go. It's been fun. Nice discussion without getting personal.

Gotta go. Nice discussion without getting personal.It was a pleasure... You raised good points...

... The system we have today allowed Judges to make very unpopular decisions regarding birth control, school systems, Jim Crow laws, election laws. Just because you don't like the new Supreme Court judges/judge is not a good reason to change the Constitution....

Not a perfect system, but still, it means that judges can judge according to law, rather than according to popular opinion. Which is a good thing, given the 'fact' that elected rulers seem to use a huge percentage of their energy for making sure they get elected again, instead of doing the work they are elected to do. Democracy has its cons.

Didn't the UN bring into existense mordern-day Israel? Don't we need International Courts to make rulings on international issues? Don't we want to live under a system of laws that all nations need to follow so that disputes can be solved in Courts of Law rather than on the battlefields of the world where innocent people are killed? Can't the nations of the world give the necessary authority to an International Court?

You know, countries solved a lot of problems between them without wars and long before the UN was ever even thought of. Country A would just talk to Country B. Yeah there were wars when Country C had bad leadership and attacked Country B, but that wasn't ALWAYS the case. And even with the UN there have been several wars all over the world that the US was never involved in. Heck fighting is pretty much a constant in the MidEast.

I am nervous about submitting American citizenry to an authority loosely related to the UN, who has appointed such luminaries as Libya and Cuba to its Human Rights Committee, who can't even agree to pass a resolution condemning terrorism, and who has a record of anti-Semitism. I'd rather keep American justice American, thank you.

You know, countries solved a lot of problems between them without wars and long before the UN was ever even thought of. Country A would just talk to Country B. Yeah there were wars when Country C had bad leadership and attacked Country B, but that wasn't ALWAYS the case. And even with the UN there have been several wars all over the world that the US was never involved in. Heck fighting is pretty much a constant in the MidEast.

True before the UN countries did find ways to solve their differences. Usually the country with the biggest army and navy solved the problem and the other counry learned to live with it. Or, waited until they could get their revenge. No question about now that we have the UN there are still problems in the world. I don't think any reasonable person would expect the UN to magically solve all of the worlds problems. And the UN will need to be reformed so that all nations have a fair voice; the UN will need to become self-sustaining. There are many problems that will have to be worked out. But it can be and will be done. If not the UN then some other Commonwealth of Nations. We must become a world of laws that govern us, rather than a world of international incidents that rule us.

Yes, International courts make perfect sense - if you believe in Internationalism.

I do.

Laws for the entire world? Hmm are we taking into account human nature? It will never work sadly. A good thought but will be ineffectual at best and a pit of corruption at worst.

For one there are so many religions that nations rely on in their courts. So will the ICC regonize these laws that others view as sarconant? Or those nations beliefs be tossed out for a court that other nations view as fair? It will never please everyone. And there fore not everyone will view it as fair.

Laws for the entire world? Hmm are we taking into account human nature? It will never work sadly. A good thought but will be ineffectual at best and a pit of corruption at worst.

For one there are so many religions that nations rely on in their courts. So will the ICC regonize these laws that others view as sarconant? Or those nations beliefs be tossed out for a court that other nations view as fair? It will never please everyone. And there fore not everyone will view it as fair.

International laws would deal with international issues. Many countries have several if not dozens of different religions in their borders and manage very well. Safeguards would be put in place that would protect against corruption.

A common response to this idea is that it is impossible, but lots of things that were thought impossible are now the norm including democracy.