NationStates Jolt Archive

So as you probably know, the International Criminal Court (ICC) have issued a warrant for the arrest of the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir. Not surprisingly, he won't give himself up nor will Sudan arrest him.

He's wanted for:
War crimes:

Intentionally directing attacks against civilians
Pillaging

Crimes against humanity:

Murder
Extermination
Forcible transfer
Torture
Rape



Sudan has dismissed the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against its leader as a "neo- colonialist" move to destabilise it.

President Omar al-Bashir is accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. It is the first such warrant served against a serving head of state.

China, a key ally of Sudan, urged the ICC to suspend its case, saying it risked destabilising Darfur.

Hours after the ICC announcement, Sudan expelled 10 foreign aid agencies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7924982.stm



China isn't happy with this, and neither are the AU. Some are saying that the quest for justice comes at the expense of peace, and that this action may destabilize the country if not the entire region. Some predict that violence will flare up in Darfur and in southern Sudan, and there are some tensions along the border to Chad.

The conflict between the north and south, which are now in a shaky coalition government, devastated South Sudan, leaving two million dead and even more displaced.

There is a fear among some analysts that the arrest warrant for President Bashir could possibly derail the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 and plunge South Sudan back into bloody conflict.

Sudan expert Alex de Waal said the warrant was coming at a critical moment for Africa's largest country.

"In less than two years time, the people of South Sudan are expected to vote in a referendum on self-determination which has the potential, the likelihood indeed, of leading to the division of the country into two," he said.

"And the first democratic elections in more than 20 years are expected this year.

"So it is already a pivotal turning-point in Sudan and there's a huge amount of political business that needs to be transacted if these two key events are to go ahead smoothly and without causing disruption and even a new war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7887007.stm



At the same time, the trial of Thomas Lubanga is in progress, the first trial ever before the ICC.
He faces six charges of recruiting and using hundreds of children aged under 15 to fight in DR Congo's brutal five-year conflict, which ended in 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7850397.stm



Meanwhile, ambassador Susan Rice has signaled a shift in U.S. policy toward support for the International Criminal Court in her first speech to the United Nations Security Council.
"The International Criminal Court, which has started its first trial this week, looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur," Rice said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060074.html

So, the questions are many:

Is it a good thing that the ICC is becomming active and starting to do what it was designed to do?

Is the arrest warrant for a sitting president in an unstable region a good move or a bad one? Is the ICC sacrificing peace for justice? Or is that simply an argument that would allow people like al-Bashir to walk away without being held accountable for their actions?

Do you expect al-Bashir to be arrested?

Do you expect Lubanga to be convicted?

Should the US join the ICC? Why / Why not?

Any other viewpoints?

Do you expect al-Bashir to be arrested?


No. No one will go in and get him for many number of reasons, and he wont be leaving.

Do you expect Lubanga to be convicted?

Yes, if only because its the ICC's first case and theyll want to flex their musvles.

Should the US join the ICC? Why / Why not?


Yes. If we are really committed to international justice and human rights, its a step in the right direction.

China isn't happy with this, and neither are the AU. Some are saying that the quest for justice comes at the expense of peace, and that this action may destabilize the country if not the entire region. Some predict that violence will flare up in Darfur and in southern Sudan, and there are some tensions along the border to Chad.

Pffft. China has no interests in this apart from carving up more of the continent for itself.


Meanwhile, ambassador Susan Rice has signaled a shift in U.S. policy toward support for the International Criminal Court in her first speech to the United Nations Security Council.
I hope they sign up to the Statute, but successive Republican and Democrat administrations haven't, so I don't see why this one would.


Is it a good thing that the ICC is becomming active and starting to do what it was designed to do?
Undoubtedly.

Is the arrest warrant for a sitting president in an unstable region a good move or a bad one? Is the ICC sacrificing peace for justice? Or is that simply an argument that would allow people like al-Bashir to walk away without being held accountable for their actions?
If it's a sitting leader, it won't create instability. Sitting Heads of State (as well as Foreign Ministers) have immunity. As soon as their term is finished, they won't be able to move outside of their borders except to State's that don't recognise the Statute (I think). The instability argument is a bullshit short term political argument IMO.

Do you expect al-Bashir to be arrested?
Eventually. They got Charles Taylor eventually. And Milosevic, Karadzic too.

Do you expect Lubanga to be convicted?
I have a feeling so. There seems to be strong evidence against him, but there's always the danger that the plea of "it was underlings, I never directly ordered XYZ" might work. Could take a while, and I'd love to read the judgements when they're published online.

Should the US join the ICC? Why / Why not?
I think it's fucking appalling Reagan opposed it initially and successive admins. never had the nerve to join.

Any other viewpoints?
Good thread - hope it doesn't sink into the mire :(

Edit: I'm fairly sure it was Reagan and the Rome Statute in the 80's...

Is it a good thing that the ICC is becomming active and starting to do what it was designed to do?
Is the arrest warrant for a sitting president in an unstable region a good move or a bad one? Is the ICC sacrificing peace for justice? Or is that simply an argument that would allow people like al-Bashir to walk away without being held accountable for their actions?
Do you expect al-Bashir to be arrested?
Do you expect Lubanga to be convicted?
Should the US join the ICC? Why / Why not?
Any other viewpoints?


It will be a good thing when it becomes an effective tool to champion human rights. Until then, it's just a warm-up exercise.
I think it's a good move because it tells people that we are all in hteory accountable to the law. And if it is actually successful, it would be cool to know that we are in fact equal under the law. And I believe we should have sacrificed peace for justice long ago to deal with Darfur.
He probably won't be arrested. My response to the previous answer is dreamy, but not likely.
Lubanga's convictions depend on too many things right now. How independent is the ICC?
The US should join the ICC so that certain members of the US government can be held accountable for what they have done. *everyone looks at Kissinger*
No other viewpoints now.

Destabilize Darfur? Is that even possible?

Do you expect al-Bashir to be arrested?

No, not unless there is a full-scale military intervention, which there won't be.

Do you expect Lubanga to be convicted?

Honestly not sure on that one.

Should the US join the ICC? Why / Why not?

Absolutely not. We have enough governmental structures far, far away from the people on a national level. An international governmental organization is even worse.

Destabilize Darfur? Is that even possible?

XD My thoughts exactly.

the ICC is a pointless waste it only can exercise jurisdiction once a the targeted person has been removed from power, and in such cases the national courts would be better suited for the matter.

the ICC is a pointless waste it only can exercise jurisdiction once a the targeted person has been removed from power, and in such cases the national courts would be better suited for the matter.

Yeah, because Im sure the national courts in Sudan will do something.

Absolutely not. We have enough governmental structures far, far away from the people on a national level. An international governmental organization is even worse.

It's a Court - not a governmental structure.

I think the fact that he won't surrender himself and Sudan won't arrest him highlights what will become the main roadblock towards the ICC accomplishing anything of relevance. The only way they're going to be able to prosecute anyone is if they've already been removed from power, and in the vast majority of the cases, the people they're wanting to prosecute are only going to be removed from power through force.

I think the fact that he won't surrender himself and Sudan won't arrest him highlights what will become the main roadblock towards the ICC accomplishing anything of relevance. The only way they're going to be able to prosecute anyone is if they've already been removed from power, and in the vast majority of the cases, the people they're wanting to prosecute are only going to be removed from power through force.

Let's just send the marines in to kidnap him, bring him to Florida, and make him stand trial.

Yeah, because Im sure the national courts in Sudan will do something.

if Omar al-Bashir and party loses power oh hell yes they will. No surer way to keep the opposition from staging a comeback then to execute them for crimes against humanity. Needless to say they have a greater chance of doing more then the ICC ever will.

Let's just send the marines in to kidnap him, bring him to Florida, and make him stand trial.



Florida?

if Omar al-Bashir and party loses power oh hell yes they will. No surer way to keep the opposition from staging a comeback then to execute them for crimes against humanity. Needless to say they have a greater chance of doing more then the ICC ever will.

Its funny, people who whine about how useless international organizations are the same ones who whine to keep it that way.

It's a Court - not a governmental structure.

True, yes, but my point stands.

Florida?

That's what we did last time. It worked fine then, so we might as well go with what works.

True, yes, but my point stands.

How?

Its funny, people who whine about how useless international organizations are the same ones who whine to keep it that way.

I think those people just aren't properly voicing their opinion. For instance, I often say that international organizations are incompetent. However, that's not whining, because I'm perfectly happy with the situation staying that way. ;)

Its funny, people who whine about how useless international organizations are the same ones who whine to keep it that way.

Id prefer they did not exist at all. then it would save us all time and money.

Its funny, people who whine about how useless international organizations are the same ones who whine to keep it that way.

I don't understand. What changes would you make to allow the ICC to violate the sovereignty of a nation to apprehend a sitting head of state, and how would you ensure the success of such operations? Honestly, no one of a right mind wants to grant an international organization like the ICC the power it would need to do its job effective simply because of the ease with which such power could be misused.

How?

I'm not a fan of supranational...anything, really. An International Court is a body that delves out what amounts to law in fact, if not in name.

Florida?

He's referring to Noriega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega#Capture).

Honestly, no one of a right mind wants to grant an international organization like the ICC the power it would need to do its job effective simply because of the ease with which such power could be misused.

You're wrong about the "no one," but yes, that's what I was trying to get at, if rather poorly.

I don't understand. What changes would you make to allow the ICC to violate the sovereignty of a nation to apprehend a sitting head of state, and how would you ensure the success of such operations? Honestly, no one of a right mind wants to grant an international organization like the ICC the power it would need to do its job effective simply because of the ease with which such power could be misused.

You just wait. You get the f*****s eventually. Not the best option, but it's probably better than setting a precedent that completely violates state sovereignty on the whim of the current biggest kid on the block.

I'm not a fan of supranational...anything, really. An International Court is a body that delves out what amounts to law in fact, if not in name.

Supranational =/= international.

You just wait. You get the f*****s eventually. Not the best option, but it's probably better than setting a precedent that completely violates state sovereignty on the whim of the current biggest kid on the block.

The fuckers get got in most cases when they are overthrown by their opposition and killed. The type of leader that the ICC will want to put on trial for crimes against humanity are not the type of leader that generally surrenders power peacefully and willingly.

Yes, if only because its the ICC's first case and theyll want to flex their musvles.
You know, I kinda hope they find him to be innocent. On solid legal grounds, of course. That way, the judges would demonstrate their independence from the prosecutor's office right off the bat.

I kinda felt that way when the ICTY recently aquitted Serbian ex-President Milan Milutinovic.

Serbian ex-President Milan Milutinovic has been acquitted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Kosovo by a UN war crimes tribunal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7911761.stm

Though of course, my first priority would be to see justice be done.


Pffft. China has no interests in this apart from carving up more of the continent for itself.
Yeah, I agree. It's all about resources and power.


I hope they sign up to the Statute, but successive Republican and Democrat administrations haven't, so I don't see why this one would.
Well, it could keep going forward as the Clinton administration was, and not backwards like Bush was.



If it's a sitting leader, it won't create instability. Sitting Heads of State (as well as Foreign Ministers) have immunity. As soon as their term is finished, they won't be able to move outside of their borders except to State's that don't recognise the Statute (I think). The instability argument is a bullshit short term political argument IMO.
Concerning the immunity of current Heads of State: The courts seem to have ignored that part? To me, it seems like they wanted Sudan to ship al-Bashir off to the Hague, regardless of when his term is finished. And that's got to be the right idea when it comes to war crimes: You shouldn't be able to duck prosecution just because you declare yourself President For Life or something like that.


I have a feeling so. There seems to be strong evidence against him, but there's always the danger that the plea of "it was underlings, I never directly ordered XYZ" might work. Could take a while, and I'd love to read the judgements when they're published online.
They're so loong! >.<

But also, there's some good law being made in the international courts. It's interesting to see the verdicts being handed down.

Not just in the international courts either: National courts are also dealing with war crimes these days. An exciting development.



Good thread - hope it doesn't sink into the mire :(
Thanks. :wink:

It will :p


It will be a good thing when it becomes an effective tool to champion human rights. Until then, it's just a warm-up exercise.
What will it take for it to become an effective tool?

And I believe we should have sacrificed peace for justice long ago to deal with Darfur.
I've long been uncertain of that position, but I think that I lean towards that stance too. One thing I keep thinking about is, what kind of peace can there be if there's no justice?

Then again, South Africa kinda made it work...


Lubanga's convictions depend on too many things right now. How independent is the ICC?
My impression is that it's very independent.

The US should join the ICC so that certain members of the US government can be held accountable for what they have done. *everyone looks at Kissinger*
Yeah... I was looking at Kissinger... Yeah... :p

Destabilize Darfur? Is that even possible?
Destabilize Sudan.

The fuckers get got in most cases when they are overthrown by their opposition and killed. The type of leader that the ICC will want to put on trial for crimes against humanity are not the type of leader that generally surrenders power peacefully and willingly.

But is that justice....? *shrug*

I'd rather they were held accountable for the scale and depravity of their crimes in front of the whole world, instead of being shot in the backyard of their Presidential Palace and thrown into a shallow grave.

Supranational =/= international.

No, but in order for the ICC to be truly effective, it would have to be supranational. If a nation can just cite its sovereignty as reason to defy an ICC edict, then it's rendered impotent. For the court to have any teeth at all, it would need the ability to violate a nation's sovereignty to pursue the criminals.

But is that justice....? *shrug*

I'd rather they were held accountable for the scale and depravity of their crimes in front of the whole world, instead of being shot in the backyard of their Presidential Palace and thrown into a shallow grave.

No, it's not, but that's not my point. The point is that, unless the ICC possesses the ability to violate a nation's sovereignty to apprehend a dictator, then most everything it does is going to be merely for show, because the nations and leaders in question will never adhere to an ICC decision.

No, but in order for the ICC to be truly effective, it would have to be supranational. If a nation can just cite its sovereignty as reason to defy an ICC edict, then it's rendered impotent. For the court to have any teeth at all, it would need the ability to violate a nation's sovereignty to pursue the criminals.

We're agreeing? I think the universe just exploded...

But is that justice....? *shrug*

I'd rather they were held accountable for the scale and depravity of their crimes in front of the whole world, instead of being shot in the backyard of their Presidential Palace and thrown into a shallow grave.

It is the reality with or with out the ICC's involvement.

No, but in order for the ICC to be truly effective, it would have to be supranational. If a nation can just cite its sovereignty as reason to defy an ICC edict, then it's rendered impotent. For the court to have any teeth at all, it would need the ability to violate a nation's sovereignty to pursue the criminals.
A state can't cite sovereignty to defy genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery, piracy, torture. A Court isn't an organisation with an armed wing - that's not it's point. It's there to dispense justice, not arrest people. That's up to another branch of the international sphere (i.e States themselves)

No, it's not, but that's not my point. The point is that, unless the ICC possesses the ability to violate a nation's sovereignty to apprehend a dictator, then most everything it does is going to be merely for show, because the nations and leaders in question will never adhere to an ICC decision.

Err.... meh. My answer above will still do for this :tongue:

It is the reality with or with out the ICC's involvement.

Considering the ICC is new and hasnt even tried a case to conclusion yet, you dont know that.


Unless you have a crystal ball. Is this the same crystal ball that told you about the tax-

Nevermind.

the ICC is a pointless waste it only can exercise jurisdiction once a the targeted person has been removed from power, and in such cases the national courts would be better suited for the matter.

So you don't really know what the ICC is, I see.

For one thing, article 17 of the Rome Statute (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm) outlines the principle of complementarity, i.e. the ICC will only step in where national courts are unwilling or unable to carry out an investigation or prosecution.

For another, a court is an institution that tends to try people after the fact. Hence, yes, the person needs to be removed from power, one way or another. But that goes to the nature of the legal system, so you're kinda off mark with your comment.

A state can't cite sovereignty to defy genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery, piracy, torture. A Court isn't an organisation with an armed wing - that's not it's point. It's there to dispense justice, not arrest people. That's up to another branch of the international sphere (i.e States themselves)

Then what is the point of the ICC? If we acknowledge that there's no way for it to actually enforce its jurisdiction, how does it become anything other than a fancy PR machine? We can issue arrest warrants for anyone we want, but if those nations (which are run by the guys we're trying to arrest; not the most cooperative sorts) refuse to even acknowledge the ICC's warrant, then what is the point? What is the ICC accomplishing? How is it dispensing justice or doing anything else except saying feel-good things?

Then what is the point of the ICC? If we acknowledge that there's no way for it to actually enforce its jurisdiction, how does it become anything other than a fancy PR machine? We can issue arrest warrants for anyone we want, but if those nations (which are run by the guys we're trying to arrest; not the most cooperative sorts) refuse to even acknowledge the ICC's warrant, then what is the point? What is the ICC accomplishing? How is it dispensing justice or doing anything else except saying feel-good things?

At the moment, its not doing anything but just that.

No, but in order for the ICC to be truly effective, it would have to be supranational. If a nation can just cite its sovereignty as reason to defy an ICC edict, then it's rendered impotent. For the court to have any teeth at all, it would need the ability to violate a nation's sovereignty to pursue the criminals.

The ICC isn't designed to be what you would call "truly effective". It's a court of law, and has no police functions. Also, it's bound by rather strict limitations to its jurisdiction already. As such, it couldn't have investigated Sudan and Darfur if it hadn't been asked to do so by the UNSC, since Sudan isn't a member of the court.

So let's not get carried away. If the court has any teeth will be evident by the convictions it hands out. I think the fear that the government of Sudan have displayed at the possibility of an arrest warrant is an indication that they do take the court seriously.

At the moment, its not doing anything but just that.

And I know it's just speculation, but I don't see that changing in the forseeable future. The court will have to rely on these dictators being deposed before they can do anything, because that's the only way they'll get turned over to the ICC.

And I know it's just speculation, but I don't see that changing in the forseeable future. The court will have to rely on these dictators being deposed before they can do anything, because that's the only way they'll get turned over to the ICC.

It may just be speculation, but its very sound speculation and what will most likely happen.

As much as I hope you are wrong.

The ICC isn't designed to be what you would call "truly effective". It's a court of law, and has no police functions. Also, it's bound by rather strict limitations to its jurisdiction already. As such, it couldn't have investigated Sudan and Darfur if it hadn't been asked to do so by the UNSC, since Sudan isn't a member of the court.

Then I'm struggling to see what the point of the ICC is, if it can't actually do anything to these dictators until they've been removed from power naturally.

So let's not get carried away. If the court has any teeth will be evident by the convictions it hands out. I think the fear that the government of Sudan have displayed at the possibility of an arrest warrant is an indication that they do take the court seriously.

The Sudanese government only fears the arrest warrant in the sense that they fear that it will embolden their opposition to renew hostilities. The fear certainly isn't for the court itself as an entity.

Is it a good thing that the ICC is becomming active and starting to do what it was designed to do?

Yes.

Is the arrest warrant for a sitting president in an unstable region a good move or a bad one? Is the ICC sacrificing peace for justice? Or is that simply an argument that would allow people like al-Bashir to walk away without being held accountable for their actions?

It was the right thing to do. We won't be able to have peace without bringing those responsible to justice.

Do you expect al-Bashir to be arrested?

No.

Do you expect Lubanga to be convicted?

Probably.

Should the US join the ICC? Why / Why not?

We should. It would help restore our international prestige, and lend the court US backing.

Any other viewpoints?

To be truly effective, the ICC needs a way to arrest sitting heads of state. Right now, the only option I can think of (barring a full-scale invasion) would be to send in commandos to kidnap him.

Personally, I think the ICC should try. Talk to the US, Britain, Israel, or anyone else with elite commandos. See, if they succeed, not only will we bring al-Bashir to justice, but it will send a message to the world: Even heads of state can be brought to justice.

Then what is the point of the ICC? If we acknowledge that there's no way for it to actually enforce its jurisdiction, how does it become anything other than a fancy PR machine?
One could say the same thing about every other international arbitration tribunal, court, or committee. It's "enforcement" comes from the will of the international community. How do you think Charles Taylor was gotten? Or Radovan Karadzic? Or Milosevic?

We can issue arrest warrants for anyone we want, but if those nations (which are run by the guys we're trying to arrest; not the most cooperative sorts) refuse to even acknowledge the ICC's warrant, then what is the point? What is the ICC accomplishing? How is it dispensing justice or doing anything else except saying feel-good things?
What's your rush? These warrants don't have a statute of limitations. He can never leave Sudan without being arrested and taken to the Hague.

It may just be speculation, but its very sound speculation and what will most likely happen.

As much as I hope you are wrong.

I hope I'm wrong to, but frankly, I know I'm not. This will become another toothless international hug-fest, just like every single UN Human Rights resolution ever. As long as sovereignty is an impenetrable defense, international organizations like the ICC will forever be at the mercy of those they seek to punish.

Considering the ICC is new and hasnt even tried a case to conclusion yet, you dont know that.



Considering the Rome Statute was signed in 98.
they have had what over decade to do nothing.
when is something worthless after it has had 100 years to do nothing ?
when do you consider something to be not new?
I mean is the UN a new body in your eyes ?
The ICC isn't a 2 or 3 year old organization its been around for a decade.

One could say the same thing about every other international arbitration tribunal, court, or committee. It's "enforcement" comes from the will of the international community. How do you think Charles Taylor was gotten? Or Radovan Karadzic? Or Milosevic?

They were gotten because they were removed from power by armed conflict within their nation.


What's your rush? These warrants don't have a statute of limitations. He can never leave Sudan without being arrested and taken to the Hague.

That's entirely untrue. He can go to any nation that will refuse to allow its sovereignty violated by the ICC for the purposes of arresting him. Essentially, any like-minded nation, which are the nations he's likely to visit anyway. I doubt he's planning a trip to Sweden any time soon.

That's entirely untrue. He can go to any nation that will refuse to allow its sovereignty violated by the ICC for the purposes of arresting him. Essentially, any like-minded nation, which are the nations he's likely to visit anyway. I doubt he's planning a trip to Sweden any time soon.

True. Then again, if the US joins the ICC, one of those "like-minded" nations might turn him in to win favor with the US.

Considering the Rome Statute was signed in 98.
they have had what over decade to do nothing.
when is something worthless after it has had 100 years to do nothing ?
when do you consider something to be not new?
I mean is the UN a new body in your eyes ?
The ICC isn't a 2 or 3 year old organization its been around for a decade.

The ICC came into being on July 1st 2002, the date its founding treaty entered into force. It's less than a decade old.

And It's taken some time to set up the organisation.

They were gotten because they were removed from power by armed conflict within their nation.

They were removed and then either hid in a neighbouring country for years and years, before international pressure forced them to be handed over. International will. It takes time, and a lot of patience - but it is there.


That's entirely untrue. He can go to any nation that will refuse to allow its sovereignty violated by the ICC for the purposes of arresting him. Essentially, any like-minded nation, which are the nations he's likely to visit anyway. I doubt he's planning a trip to Sweden any time soon.
Not quite. Even states that haven't ratified the Rome Statute (i.e the document founding the ICC) are still bound to refrain "from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty" (Article 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm

Almost 150 states have signed the Treaty. So that drastically cuts down the amount of 'safe havens' he has. Although, I will freely admit to (and withdraw) the hyperbole of "never leave Sudan" in the previous post.

Considering the Rome Statute was signed in 98.
they have had what over decade to do nothing.
when is something worthless after it has had 100 years to do nothing ?
when do you consider something to be not new?
I mean is the UN a new body in your eyes ?
The ICC isn't a 2 or 3 year old organization its been around for a decade.

2002 actually.


You really have no idea whats being discussed here, do you?

It's a Court - not a governmental structure.

Interesting.

Should the US join the ICC? Why / Why not?
No, because we'd just end up footing most of the bill and nothing would get done in the end.

I think its good that they finally tried to do something about Sudan though. Regions like that are just what the ICC was created for.

So you don't really know what the ICC is, I see.

For one thing, article 17 of the Rome Statute (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm) outlines the principle of complementarity, i.e. the ICC will only step in where national courts are unwilling or unable to carry out an investigation or prosecution.

For another, a court is an institution that tends to try people after the fact. Hence, yes, the person needs to be removed from power, one way or another. But that goes to the nature of the legal system, so you're kinda off mark with your comment.

that's why the ICC is worthless, there is no force attached to it.
A former head of state will either be liked in his country and protected(is friends and allies came to power).
Or is to be caught and executed by the opposition when they come to power.

Some might flee the country, and save their country from civil war, But the existence of the ICC forces such leaders to stay in the country and fight out a civil war?
Is justice rendered on to one war criminal worth the killing of thousands or even millions more in the prolonged civil strife?
In the case of Omar al-Bashir all the ICC's warrant has done is make sure he will fight to maintain power until everything within the country is destroyed.

In the pragmatic sense the ICC will lead to more death then it will ever prevent.

Then what is the point of the ICC?
To prosecute the perpetrators of the most serious crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes, when the courts that should have tried them are unable or unwilling to do so. All of the perpretrators, not just the heads of state, and not just the grunt soldiers on the ground.[/QUOTE]

If we acknowledge that there's no way for it to actually enforce its jurisdiction, how does it become anything other than a fancy PR machine?
We don't acknowledge that: Each of the member states is obliged to actively aid to enforce the jurisdiction.

We can issue arrest warrants for anyone we want, but if those nations (which are run by the guys we're trying to arrest; not the most cooperative sorts) refuse to even acknowledge the ICC's warrant, then what is the point?
For one, I could mention that Thomas Lubanga was arrested by the Congolese. He was seen as a person that the national courts were deemed unable to prosecute. So it serves as a backup system where the national courts break down.

What is the ICC accomplishing? How is it dispensing justice or doing anything else except saying feel-good things?
That's yet to be determined, but they could be accomplishing this: Bringing war criminals to justice.

Then I'm struggling to see what the point of the ICC is, if it can't actually do anything to these dictators until they've been removed from power naturally.
As with all criminal courts, it's supposed to handle matters after the fact. Removing them from power is not the task of the ICC - bringing about justice is.



The Sudanese government only fears the arrest warrant in the sense that they fear that it will embolden their opposition to renew hostilities. The fear certainly isn't for the court itself as an entity.
I'm not convinced that you're right here.

I hope I'm wrong to, but frankly, I know I'm not. This will become another toothless international hug-fest, just like every single UN Human Rights resolution ever. As long as sovereignty is an impenetrable defense, international organizations like the ICC will forever be at the mercy of those they seek to punish.
Every single Human Rights Resolution?

I'm afraid that you're not giving them enough credit. Courts like the ECHR have been established based on treaties founded on UN Human Rights resolutions. The ECHR isn't really "toothless", and has had quite an impact on Europe. Just as an example.

The ICC came into being on July 1st 2002, the date its founding treaty entered into force. It's less than a decade old.

And It's taken some time to set up the organisation.
of lord they had 7 years instead of 11. Never mind the treaty was signed in 1998 and they had nothing to do for the 4 years but try and figure out how to set up the court once ratified by the signatories.

We don't acknowledge that: Each of the member states is obliged to actively aid to enforce the jurisdiction.
I wish we lived in a world where this would be enough. But when the member state says "Oh no, I don't think I'm going to do that," how does the ICC respond? International relations is anarchical, so the ICC is only relevant when countries want it to be.

No, because we'd just end up footing most of the bill and nothing would get done in the end.
Can you show me how the US would pay more for the court if it joined than it does now?[/QUOTE]

that's why the ICC is worthless, there is no force attached to it.
Except that there is. The joint force of its member states.

What you mean to complain about is that they cannot violate the national sovereignty of an independent nationstate...

(Which they can through the UNSC, but only if the usual requirements are fulfilled.)

A former head of state will either be liked in his country and protected(is friends and allies came to power).
Or is to be caught and executed by the opposition when they come to power.
Or not. Like Slobodan Milošević.

Some might flee the country, and save their country from civil war, But the existence of the ICC forces such leaders to stay in the country and fight out a civil war?
I don't see that it forces them to do anything. And they could still go to China today, for example.

Is justice rendered on to one war criminal worth the killing of thousands or even millions more in the prolonged civil strife?
THAT's the question I've been asking.

The answer I've come up with so far is... Maybe.

In the case of Omar al-Bashir all the ICC's warrant has done is make sure he will fight to maintain power until everything within the country is destroyed.

In the pragmatic sense the ICC will lead to more death then it will ever prevent.
Oh? And what makes you think that al-Bashir wouldn't have fought to maintain power until everything within the country was destroyed regardless of the warrant?

2002 actually.


You really have no idea whats being discussed here, do you?

Ratified 2002.
signed 1998.

Ratified =/= signed.
but signed treaties are carried out anyways until a ratification vote.
And they most certainly can be prepared for.

Can you show me how the US would pay more for the court if it joined than it does now?
The US pays $0 for it now, since it is not a member, and if it joined it would have to pay more than $0.

QED

of lord they had 7 years instead of 11. Never mind the treaty was signed in 1998 and they had nothing to do for the 4 years but try and figure out how to set up the court once ratified by the signatories.
It must be nice to live in a world where setting up an international court, codifying international law, making agreements with 108 different nations (while at the same time being undermined and opposed by the worlds largest Superpower), starting investigations of countless alleged crimes, gathering evidence, and actually capturing and trying war criminals apparently should take less time than setting up a soda stand in the back yard. Anything taking more than a week is "worthless" I guess. :rolleyes:

But when the member state says "Oh no, I don't think I'm going to do that," how does the ICC respond?
That's gonna be an interesting day, if it happens :wink:

Could be many responses to that.

The US pays $0 for it now, since it is not a member, and if it joined it would have to pay more than $0.

QED
Weak.

I'm waiting for you to show me that the Court is financed by contributions from the states parties, and not through the UN system (Which the US funnels money into).

I know you can do it! Go for it!

Except that there is. The joint force of its member states.

member states do not have the authority and neither does the court to direct intervetnions in anyway shape or form.



Oh? And what makes you think that al-Bashir wouldn't have fought to maintain power until everything within the country was destroyed regardless of the warrant?

him in particular no. But in the instance of Haiti during the Clinton intervention there we were able to get Raoul Cédras to except life in a nice easy life ina villa in Panama. Was justice done in this case ? No but it saved American lives and Haitian lives as well.
Such a treaty would tie the hands of international politics in resolving matters for the greater good.

Weak.

I'm waiting for you to show me that the Court is financed by contributions from the states parties, and not through the UN system (Which the US funnels money into).

I know you can do it! Go for it!

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8981/

funded primarily by member states. funded by the UN only in the cases where the UN refers a case to it.

Ratified 2002.
signed 1998.

Ratified =/= signed.
but signed treaties are carried out anyways until a ratification vote.
And they most certainly can be prepared for.
Why start costly preparations before you know that you'll have the number of ratifications that you'll need?

member states do not have the authority and neither does the court to direct intervetnions in anyway shape or form.
No, they don't. But they do have jurisdiction over their own territories. And that's 108 states that no longer would serve as safe havens.

And again, Thomas Lubanga was arrested by the forces of a member state...

him in particular no. But in the instance of Haiti during the Clinton intervention there we were able to get Raoul Cédras to except life in a nice easy life ina villa in Panama. Was justice done in this case ? No but it saved American lives and Haitian lives as well.
Such a treaty would tie the hands of international politics in resolving matters for the greater good.
Not that convincing. Raoul Cédras wan't a wanted man, was he? What justice wasn't done? Were there any indications that he's burn his own country to the ground to avoid being brought to justice?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8981/

funded primarily by member states. funded by the UN only in the cases where the UN refers a case to it.

Hm, I learned something there. The US could actually be paying for this after all, since the Sudan situation was referred to the court by the Security Council.

Thanks for the link :wink:

Hm, I learned something there. The US could actually be paying for this after all, since the Sudan situation was referred to the court by the Security Council.

is/should

I don't think the US should be a part of the UN either, but that's another debate for another thread.

Why start costly preparations before you know that you'll have the number of ratifications that you'll need?

because in polotics you have a pretty good idea over weather the signing nation will ratify the treaty especially in a parliamentary governments. And those that wont ratify are pretty obvious they normally have a signing and ratifying authority of different parties. besides it is common procedure to begin applying the treaty where possible by executive order. For instance peace between the US and Germany during WWI was not ratified until July 1921, but American soldiers were not still in the trenches fighting the Germans, we had left with the signing of Versailles in 1919.



Not that convincing. Raoul Cédras wan't a wanted man, was he? What justice wasn't done? Were there any indications that he's burn his own country to the ground to avoid being brought to justice?
His crimes could be seen as such if committed today. He just seems to have had the good sense to commit them before the ICC existed. And if he had resisted US invasion we likely would have tried him for war crimes. Given after destroying all of Haiti.

Not quite. Even states that haven't ratified the Rome Statute (i.e the document founding the ICC) are still bound to refrain "from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty" (Article 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm

Almost 150 states have signed the Treaty. So that drastically cuts down the amount of 'safe havens' he has. Although, I will freely admit to (and withdraw) the hyperbole of "never leave Sudan" in the previous post

Awww...drinking my virgin gin and tonic (:D) in celebration of the completion of a major project, logging happily on to NSG, finding a topic that is directly related to said major project, and hoping to leap in with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I find myself cockblocked by PM.

Damn you.

Damn you to hell.

Awww...drinking my virgin gin and tonic (:D) in celebration of the completion of a major project, logging happily on to NSG, finding a topic that is directly related to said major project, and hoping to leap in with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I find myself cockblocked by PM.

Damn you.

Damn you to hell.

*bows*
If only the timezones were different :fluffle:

(Hope it went well :D , I'm trying to put a dissertation together on humanitarian interventionism and state sovereignty :( )

*bows*
If only the timezones were different :fluffle:

(Hope it went well :D , I'm trying to put a dissertation together on humanitarian interventionism and state sovereignty :( )Ah well, no one but maybe you and Gravlen would have shared my joy at bringing it up anyway, so I'll live!

Nice, I have to chart the evolution of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment as it was blocked during the '96 WTO Singapore Ministerial, and how those contested provisions slipped into BITs since then. Then it's on to suggest civil remedies for women trafficked into the EU for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The shits and giggles never fucking end!



Is it a good thing that the ICC is becomming active and starting to do what it was designed to do?
There is enough international political will to make the ICC of some use, despite the notable absence of some very major players. We have regional courts (http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/) of human rights, or specialised tribunals set up to deal with specific conflicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Chambers_in_the_Courts_of_Cambodia), but this is the first international court with this kind of mandate. The ICJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICJ) is limited, and simply not capable of dealing with these sorts of issues. There has been a lacuna, and if the ICC wants to fill it, I'm not adverse. I'd like to see less political cockblocking though. My word of the day.


Is the arrest warrant for a sitting president in an unstable region a good move or a bad one? Is the ICC sacrificing peace for justice? Or is that simply an argument that would allow people like al-Bashir to walk away without being held accountable for their actions?
It's an extraordinarily bold move, and I'm not really sure yet how I feel about it. Glee was my first reaction, even knowing it's going to be difficult at best to carry out the warrant.

Do you expect al-Bashir to be arrested? No. Not yet in any case.

I'm going to skip the other questions specifically and just say this. International law is marred by its horizontal nature. Nonetheless, there are legitimate reasons that it exists in this form, and it requires consensus, rather than coercion. Sometimes coercion works better, and that's just the way it is. Nonetheless, international law and international organs like the ICC (insert dirty joke here) are extremely valuable even absent a mechanism of enforcement. International decisions have various impact on domestic judicial and political systems, and can raise the profile of certain issues enough to overcome inertia. As long as we recognise the inherent limitations of international law, and use it as best we can to achieve our goals within those limitations, then I'm all for it.

Couldn't care less. I don't see how his arrest, or continued rule, will make any real change to the UK. Hence I don't care.

Couldn't care less. I don't see how his arrest, or continued rule, will make any real change to the UK. Hence I don't care.

Rousseau would like to have a word with you.

Rousseau would like to have a word with you.

How very presumptious of you. For all you know the old boy's busy.

How very presumptious of you. For all you know the old boy's busy.

I'm sure he'll stop whatever he's doing to explain the general will to you.

I'm sure he'll stop whatever he's doing to explain the general will to you.

He's probably bored of doing so by now. I would be.

He's probably bored of doing so by now. I would be.

He's been kicked out of so many countries that he lives alone in the woods. He wouldn't mind a little human contact every now and then.

He's been kicked out of so many countries that he lives alone in the woods. He wouldn't mind a little human contact every now and then.

Nonesense. I imagine the conversation with the bears is enthralling.

Nonesense. I imagine the conversation with the bears is enthralling.

The question is, though, are the bears happy in their ignorance?

The question is, though, are the bears happy in their ignorance?

The question, if bears are to be considered, is whether they shit in the woods surely?

Shut up, your inane conversation is a crime against humanity.

The US pays $0 for it now, since it is not a member, and if it joined it would have to pay more than $0.

QED

That's not what you said here.


No, because we'd just end up footing most of the bill

Besides, the US hasn't paid it's UN dues in years either. Likely it wouldn't pay a cent for the ICC even if it joined either. The US is big on borrowing stuff from other people, but a real scrooge when it comes to paying what's owed.

the US hasn't paid it's UN dues in years either. Likely it wouldn't pay a cent for the ICC even if it joined either. The US is big on borrowing stuff from other people, but a real scrooge when it comes to paying what's owed.

We haven't paid because we're paying for everything. It makes sense to me.

Its a classic collective action problem. There are hundreds of nations contributing nothing, but they still expect the benefits of their non-contributions. The US contributes the most of any nation, and gets nothing in return. Is it any surprise we got sick of it?

We haven't paid because we're paying for everything. It makes sense to me.

Its a classic collective action problem. There are hundreds of nations contributing nothing, but they still expect the benefits of their non-contributions. The US contributes the most of any nation, and gets nothing in return. Is it any surprise we got sick of it?

What is it that you think the US should get in return?

What is it that you think the US should get in return?

I could go for some iced tea.

I could go for some iced tea.

Done and done.

But seriously now. If international peace and stability were not a goal that had direct political and economic impact on all nations, then why would we even bother trying?

Oh wait.

Hmmm.

What is it that you think the US should get in return?

Its not about what I think we should get in return, which is of course flowers and sunshine, its about what we realistically can expect to get in return.

So as you probably know, the International Criminal Court (ICC) have issued a warrant for the arrest of the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir. Not surprisingly, he won't give himself up nor will Sudan arrest him.


I think that all UN member countries should ratify the ICC treaty and acknowledge its jurisdiction. Countries unwilling to ratify it can leave the full membership and become permanent observers.

So much many people criticise the UN for being toothless... now that a UN agency is showing some spine (via an authorisation from the Security Council, hence with the ok from Russia and China and the US, too, who didn't ratify the ICC treaty!) lots of countries suddenly say "OMG thou shalt not touch a dictator and war criminal who conquered power through a coup, he's legally a head of state".

Anyway, I doubt that some country will ever arrest him. Unless he's so crazy to come to Europe or the US, that is.

As for the claims of "neocolonialism" hailing from african and arab countries, it's bollocks. This is not colonialism, period.
The country who's currently exploiting Sudan as a colonial power is China, and China opposes the ICC warrant-of-arrest. Many leaders are just afraid that they could be the next in line to be tried for genocides and war crimes.

Its not about what I think we should get in return, which is of course flowers and sunshine, its about what we realistically can expect to get in return.Which is....?

I'm trying to figure out what you've got in mind here...or if you're just spouting rhetoric.

Which is....?

I'm trying to figure out what you've got in mind here...or if you're just spouting rhetoric.

Nothing. We can realistically expect to get nothing in return because of the nature of the UN and international politics. Since there is no supranational government ensuring that contracts made by nations are kept, the UN is ineffectual in solving the free rider problem. The US pays more than its fair share of money into the UN because other nations have no desire to pay, because their lack of payment does not preclude them from receiving the benefits that the UN has to offer. Our government, however, has historically been interested (for what reason, I cannot say) in such international organizations - see Wilson and the League of Nations - so while the occasional administration might mouth off towards the UN, we will never leave.

Sorry if I was unclear.

I'm annoyed, let me try again.
We haven't paid because we're paying for everything. It makes sense to me.

Its a classic collective action problem. There are hundreds of nations contributing nothing, but they still expect the benefits of their non-contributions. The US contributes the most of any nation, and gets nothing in return. Is it any surprise we got sick of it?
Here you indicate that the US would like something out of it.
What is it that you think the US should get in return?

Its not about what I think we should get in return, which is of course flowers and sunshine, its about what we realistically can expect to get in return.
I don't believe that you actually are suggesting the US wants flowers and sunshine out of it.
Nothing. We can realistically expect to get nothing in return because of the nature of the UN and international politics. Since there is no supranational government ensuring that contracts made by nations are kept, the UN is ineffectual in solving the free rider problem. The US pays more than its fair share of money into the UN because other nations have no desire to pay, because their lack of payment does not preclude them from receiving the benefits that the UN has to offer. Our government, however, has historically been interested (for what reason, I cannot say) in such international organizations - see Wilson and the League of Nations - so while the occasional administration might mouth off towards the UN, we will never leave.

Sorry if I was unclear.
Try again please. What is it that the US feels like it should get out of paying 22% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding) of the UN budget...the lack of which causes you to assert that the US is 'sick of it'?

Its not about what I think we should get in return, which is of course flowers and sunshine, its about what we realistically can expect to get in return.

We can get increased stability and more quickly growing markets in developing nations? In the short run, it's a bit of a problem, in the long and even mid run, it's likely a pretty damned good trade off.

What is it that the US feels like it should get out of paying 22% of the UN budget...the lack of which causes you to assert that the US is 'sick of it'?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/preamble.shtml

We can get increased stability and more quickly growing markets in developing nations? In the short run, it's a bit of a problem, in the long and even mid run, it's likely a pretty damned good trade off.

I do not think that the creation of the UN has led to these accomplishments.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/preamble.shtml



I do not think that the creation of the UN has led to these accomplishments.

And I'd agree, but that's in large part due to the issue of legitimacy. For anything to have true legitimacy it needs to be understood to have an impact on security.

There are two ways this can be done: either threaten security by force or be understood to be something that increases security through data, rhetoric, whatever. Unfortunately, or not depending on who you are, the UN cannot gain the kind of legitimacy it needs through the use of force, obviously. So it is left with the task of proving itself to be an entity that increases security. This is a bit of a catch-22, though, in that it needs to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of those who clamor that it cannot be legitimate because they don't see it as such. *shrug* It's an interesting situation and the dynamics of power make it a difficult political surface to trek.

And I'd agree, but that's in large part due to the issue of legitimacy. For anything to have true legitimacy it needs to be understood to have an impact on security.

This is what I've been saying all along.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/preamble.shtml



Okay, good, now I'm clear as to where you're coming from. I agree that the goals set out in the preamble of the UN Charter are indeed what any of us hope to 'get out of' the UN.

What I find so problematic about this is that the US is willing to fund 22% of the UN's operating budget while at the same time constantly using its position as a permanent member of the Security Council to deliberately undermine the process of achieving those goals. It's slightly schizophrenic, unless you were to take the extremely cynical view that the money spent is 'worth it' in the sense of global PR and there is no actual intention to work towards those goals at all.

What the US should be sick of, and by the US I'm now talking about its citizenry, is this bullshit approach. Either go ahead and blow your load, or just stop sticking your dick in it altogether.

This is what I've been saying all along.

Alright, then perhaps you see why the tired tirade of "we cannot submit our country's sovereignty to the UN because it doesn't have the legitimacy!" is entirely counterproductive. The UN can impact security, unfortunately one would have to look further than the immediacy and short run. Leaders tend not to do this.

Really, I don't even care much. I see it as an inevitability. The world is clumping into regional blocs. Regionalization is proving itself to be a constant and unstoppable force in the same way the centrifugal force of the Moon's orbit is slowly and constantly pulling it away from the Earth. Such clumping of power seems to be an historic rule. Clamoring against the UN as some subversive force to sovereignty seems to me as if, prior to the founding of Ur, some prehistoric man was shouting that this odd new thing that we now understand as the city-state was going to take away his personal sovereignty and therefor reduce his security.

Sounds like a job for this guy:

http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A1657/165779/300_165779.jpg

What the US should be sick of, and by the US I'm now talking about its citizenry, is this bullshit approach. Either go ahead and blow your load, or just stop sticking your dick in it altogether.

Leave our bedroom talk out of this!

Clamoring against the UN as some subversive force to sovereignty seems to me as if, prior to the founding of Ur, some prehistoric man was shouting that this odd new thing that we now understand as the city-state was going to take away his personal sovereignty and therefor reduce his security.
Completely different situations. The city-state, or nation, by the very nature of its founding is an organization or structure created to enforce contracts. Government was and is created as an assurance against one party breaking their end of a deal. The UN, since it is a supranational organization, has no such power.

Completely different situations. The city-state, or nation, by the very nature of its founding is an organization or structure created to enforce contracts. Government was and is created as an assurance against one party breaking their end of a deal. The UN, since it is a supranational organization, has no such power.

You'd be hard pressed to prove that. While some of the earliest forms of writing are of market transactions and property records, it seems just as likely that the first city-states arose because of the increased security afforded the individual when acting cooperatively. And, again, the nation and the city-state are different things entirely. It speaks to the amalgamating trend of power and legitimacy that nations were able to arise from their various city-state predecessors.

You'd be hard pressed to prove that. While some of the earliest forms of writing are of market transactions and property records, it seems just as likely that the first city-states arose because of the increased security afforded the individual when acting cooperatively. And, again, the nation and the city-state are different things entirely. It speaks to the amalgamating trend of power and legitimacy that nations were able to arise from their various city-state predecessors.

I believe that there has never existed a "state of nature". That is to say, humans have never lived in a situation that was anarchical in nature. There has always been a government or society. This is because without said government, when two people enter into a contract, there is no reason that one person shouldn't invalidate the contract whenever it becomes convenient for them to do so. If this is what you mean by security then you are correct, but I suspect it isn't. Anyways, I think we can agree that society is better than lack thereof, the reasons for it existing are merely a formality.

However, I will repeat that it is not a comparison to the international scene. When one lives in a city-state, there is an overarching supervisor - a supernational government. This does not exist on the international stage.

I believe that there has never existed a "state of nature". That is to say, humans have never lived in a situation that was anarchical in nature. There has always been a government or society. This is because without said government, when two people enter into a contract, there is no reason that one person shouldn't invalidate the contract whenever it becomes convenient for them to do so. If this is what you mean by security then you are correct, but I suspect it isn't. Anyways, I think we can agree that society is better than lack thereof, the reasons for it existing are merely a formality.

However, I will repeat that it is not a comparison to the international scene. When one lives in a city-state, there is an overarching supervisor - a supernational government. This does not exist on the international stage.

I'm calling into question the legitimacy of the overarching supervisor. Yes, as far as we know, prior to the city-state people existed in tribal/family units. For that "sovereign" authority to gain legitimacy as the actual authority, he must first convince others to use force to further his aims, otherwise he is on an even playing-field, just like the international arena. Now, you may say that, well, the bigger guy simply threatens each of the individual smaller guys, "Do as I say or I'm gonna hit you with this here mammoth shin," and thus the smaller guys fall in line. This isn't very different from the international scene, where larger countries can threaten individual smaller countries with their mammoth shins. In fact, I'd be willing to say that within this particular context, states operate more predictably. A state, being at its most fundamental, an amalgamation of the will of its residents will follow "rules" since the extremes on the curve are can be ignored, while individuals, being individual, cannot really be understood when engaging in this sort of meta-analysis.

Also, as an aside, we are a cooperative species, there are evolutionary reasons why the concept of respecting a "contract" instinctually would be beneficial and become common throughout.

*Snip*
So can you tell me more about the immunity of a sitting head of state? I've heard about it but admit I know very little about it. Is it something enshrined in customary international law? And if so, have you got any thoughts on how the ICC could hand out an arrest warrant on an active head of state?

Ah well, no one but maybe you and Gravlen would have shared my joy at bringing it up anyway, so I'll live!
Aaaw, and we'd laughed so heartily together with you for such a joyous event.

Nice, I have to chart the evolution of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment as it was blocked during the '96 WTO Singapore Ministerial, and how those contested provisions slipped into BITs since then. Then it's on to suggest civil remedies for women trafficked into the EU for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The shits and giggles never fucking end!
Sounds like what I did for fun last weekend. While I was drunk. and tied to a one-legged bed!

:p

The ICJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICJ) is limited, and simply not capable of dealing with these sorts of issues.
Yeah, the ICJ was not set up as a criminal court and cannot deal with these kinds of cases.


I'm going to skip the other questions specifically and just say this. International law is marred by its horizontal nature. Nonetheless, there are legitimate reasons that it exists in this form, and it requires consensus, rather than coercion. Sometimes coercion works better, and that's just the way it is. Nonetheless, international law and international organs like the ICC (insert dirty joke here) are extremely valuable even absent a mechanism of enforcement.
But let's not forget that this court does have some measures of enforcement. As I've mentioned before, the member states are compelled to work with the court to arrest suspects (It's going to be very interesting to see what'll happen if al-Bashir ever travels to Congo (DRC) since they're apparantly not overjoyed by the investigation into Darfur but wants the ICC to work and to be effective) and the prisons of the member states are waiting for convicted criminals...

And in addition, I would suggest that the acts of the ICC has a preventative effect, showing that nobody is excempt from prosecution. At least, I would hope so.

So can you tell me more about the immunity of a sitting head of state? I've heard about it but admit I know very little about it. Is it something enshrined in customary international law? And if so, have you got any thoughts on how the ICC could hand out an arrest warrant on an active head of state?

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution_(international_law)) does a bang up job of explaining it actually. The ICC specifically states that there is no immunity for a head of state for crimes against humanity, and no immunity from 'international crimes' has been building for a while, so it's been argued that customary international law has evolved.


Aaaw, and we'd laughed so heartily together with you for such a joyous event. Would there have been frolicking too? Listen, I get excited by silly things...when I was in Vegas at the Erotic Heritage Museum, I nearly had an orgasm when I saw the wall that listed all the major obscenity cases in the Anglo jurisprudence...that's right, case names got me hotter than sex machines.


Sounds like what I did for fun last weekend. While I was drunk. and tied to a one-legged bed! For some reason I'm picturing a 50-year old prostitute named Hilda with an eye patch and a whip.


But let's not forget that this court does have some measures of enforcement. As I've mentioned before, the member states are compelled to work with the court to arrest suspects (It's going to be very interesting to see what'll happen if al-Bashir ever travels to Congo (DRC) since they're apparantly not overjoyed by the investigation into Darfur but wants the ICC to work and to be effective) and the prisons of the member states are waiting for convicted criminals... True and in this case I don't think the situation is so radically divergent from situations where countries are seeking extradition...some nations have ameniable treaties, others do not...does this mean that there is no 'enforcement'? I certainly don't think so.

And in addition, I would suggest that the acts of the ICC has a preventative effect, showing that nobody is excempt from prosecution. At least, I would hope so.
I agree, along with the various other international criminal tribunals that have sat recently. I think it's becoming fairly accepted that if you cross a certain line, even as a head of state, you're not going to be immune to consequences.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution_(international_law)) does a bang up job of explaining it actually. The ICC specifically states that there is no immunity for a head of state for crimes against humanity, and no immunity from 'international crimes' has been building for a while, so it's been argued that customary international law has evolved.
Thanks for the link - and you are very right, both about the quality of the link and the fact that the Rome Statute explicitly states:
Article 27
Irrelevance of official capacity

1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

Interesting how the immunity for heads of state is acknowledged, but ignored. As it should be, I think.

Would there have been frolicking too?
Even prancing, if we'd gotten Kiryu in on this, I'm sure.

Listen, I get excited by silly things...when I was in Vegas at the Erotic Heritage Museum, I nearly had an orgasm when I saw the wall that listed all the major obscenity cases in the Anglo jurisprudence...that's right, case names got me hotter than sex machines.
:tongue:

So... Mmmmmmmmmmiller v. Californiaaaaaah?


For some reason I'm picturing a 50-year old prostitute named Hilda with an eye patch and a whip.
47-year old, and her name is Inga and she has a parrot. Otherwise, spot on.


True and in this case I don't think the situation is so radically divergent from situations where countries are seeking extradition...some nations have ameniable treaties, others do not...does this mean that there is no 'enforcement'? I certainly don't think so.

I agree, along with the various other international criminal tribunals that have sat recently. I think it's becoming fairly accepted that if you cross a certain line, even as a head of state, you're not going to be immune to consequences.
And I agree with that principle. The world community needs to stand up to the tinpot dictators and crazy leaders who abuse human rights. The idea that as long as it's only their own people they're tormenting no longer holds water - we live in a global community, so even if we were to disregard the purely humanitarian perspective, these things have a direct effect on us in different ways.

One example would be the refugee who is taken in by a new country. The host country will have to deal with the aftermath of the abuse, be it PTSD or worse.

And on an unrelated note, I'd also like to mention that it seems like some people do have a genuine fear of the international courts, even the ones who have little to offer when it comes to enforcement and consequences. Like how it may be that the Chechen president Kadyrov (the nice guy who recently proclaimed that seven women who were found dead along the road outside of Groznyj last november were women of loose morals who deserved to die (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-chechnya_01int.ART.State.Edition1.4a814f0.html)) may have ordered the assassination of several Chechen refugees (among them Umar Israilov) who had filed complaints concerning torture before the European Court of Human Rights. If true, it could mean that he ordered them killed for fear of being convicted in an international court that could do no more than demand economic compensation for the torture the men had experienced.

-snip

-snip-

As you guys have both covered it brilliantly, I'm not needed anymore *sniff* :(

Just to say I've a huge man-crush on this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Garzón

He takes the universality of international law, and nails people for it. (or tries to)

As you guys have both covered it brilliantly, I'm not needed anymore *sniff* :(
Pfft! You have a reserved seat at the table :fluffle:

Just to say I've a huge man-crush on this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Garzón

He takes the universality of international law, and nails people for it. (or tries to)

I like it - there are some people out there that should be brought to justice, and I like that there are creative people with some initiative clearing a path.

It's also good to see national courts (and prosecutors / investigators) taking responsibility and investigating serious crimes, even those that have happened outside the country, thus making the ICC the "court of last resort" it was meant to be. Take Norway for example, where not long ago a former Bosniak (now a Norwegian citizen) was convicted of war crimes against Serbian civilians. (The case has been appealed.)

http://www.humanrights.uio.no/programmes/icc/warcrimes_norway.doc

Nothing. We can realistically expect to get nothing in return because of the nature of the UN and international politics. Since there is no supranational government ensuring that contracts made by nations are kept, the UN is ineffectual in solving the free rider problem. The US pays more than its fair share of money into the UN because other nations have no desire to pay, because their lack of payment does not preclude them from receiving the benefits that the UN has to offer. Our government, however, has historically been interested (for what reason, I cannot say) in such international organizations - see Wilson and the League of Nations - so while the occasional administration might mouth off towards the UN, we will never leave.

Sorry if I was unclear.


You do know that one of the major reasons for the failure of the League of Nation and such the Second World War was the lack of support from America Congress right?

You do know that one of the major reasons for the failure of the League of Nation and such the Second World War was the lack of support from America Congress right?

That's not really true.

Don't mistake the League for it's much more effective successor, the UN. The League was, by and large, a "Great Powers Only" club, designed to keep the GPs from getting into another WWI dustup. The fact that the US Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, and the US Congress refused to allow US membership (entirely IN ACCORDANCE with the will of the general populace) merely kept the League out of the Western Hemisphere.

The true failure of the League was that it had no power at all. It was, in fact, totally impotent. When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, it whined. Whe Japan invaded China, it whimpered. It had no functionality, no purpose, and ultimately, no future.

The true failure of the League was that it had no power at all. It was, in fact, totally impotent. When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, it whined. Whe Japan invaded China, it whimpered. It had no functionality, no purpose, and ultimately, no future.
Largely, I think it's safe to say, because member-nations, including the US, were unwilling to commit to the demilitarisation clauses in the League.

It's a circular argument to attack the LoN or the UN for impotency, as what makes such organisations impotent are its member nations. To pick on the US further, it's perfectly happy to use the UN as a very potent tool for its own uses. We didn't hear many cries of impotency when Resolution 1441 was bandied about.

The UN, particularly the UNSC, is fantastically effective at, say, enabling Israel to do all manner of things. Democratising the whole affair would be a big step forward; the fact that the UNSC can veto any General Council resolution is a farce.

Democratising the whole affair would be a big step forward; the fact that the UNSC can veto any General Council resolution is a farce.
Not as much veto the non-binding resolutions as override them or ignore them :p

Largely, I think it's safe to say, because member-nations, including the US, were unwilling to commit to the demilitarisation clauses in the League.

It's a circular argument to attack the LoN or the UN for impotency, as what makes such organisations impotent are its member nations. To pick on the US further, it's perfectly happy to use the UN as a very potent tool for its own uses. We didn't hear many cries of impotency when Resolution 1441 was bandied about.

The UN, particularly the UNSC, is fantastically effective at, say, enabling Israel to do all manner of things. Democratising the whole affair would be a big step forward; the fact that the UNSC can veto any General Council resolution is a farce.

Ah, CW, you do know the US was NEVER a member of the League, don't you?

the fact that the UNSC can veto any General Council resolution is a farce.

For the vast majority that's true.... but this little doozy was a gem of a General Assembly Resolution that has been used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Peace

Ah, CW, you do know the US was NEVER a member of the League, don't you?
Ah yes, you're quite right. Much to Wilson's chagrin.

Still, the rest of argument stands; cries of impotency from the US are disingenuous.

Ah yes, you're quite right. Much to Wilson's chagrin.

Still, the rest of argument stands.

And stands well. Had the Great Powers actually done as they said they would, the League might have had some success.

ad the Great Powers actually done as they said they would, the League might have had some success.
Yes, and I recognise the problem inherent in this: to make the UN truly effective, the (more powerful) member-nations must want it to be truly effective.

As it stands, they (and by no means is the US alone in guilt for this) only wish this when the aims of the UN meet their own aims.

Yes, and I recognise the problem inherent in this: to make the UN truly effective, the (more powerful) member-nations must want it to be truly effective.

As it stands, they (and by no means is the US alone in guilt for this) only wish this when the aims of the UN meet their own aims.

And the problem is...?

And the problem is...?

That it cripples the UN's ability to reduce war. As it stands, the UN is a great debating forum, with some actually useful organizations tacked on, but it has no authority to enforce it's decisions. It can only rubber stamp or refuse to rubber stamp the decisions of it's member states.

And the problem is...?

I'm guessing that you ask because you don't want to see the UN be effective, judging by your past posts on the subject of international organizations.

That it cripples the UN's ability to reduce war. As it stands, the UN is a great debating forum, with some actually useful organizations tacked on, but it has no authority to enforce it's decisions. It can only rubber stamp or refuse to rubber stamp the decisions of it's member states.

Is that a problem?

I'm guessing that you ask because you don't want to see the UN be effective, judging by your past posts on the subject of international organizations.

Bingo.

And the problem is...?
Whatever one's opinions on the UN, one can still see this as a problem for the UN's potency.

Bingo.

So appart from not wanting to see any international organisations increase their abilities to reduce war, do you have any thoughts on international criminal justice?

Is the ICC an evil international construct that the world (or the US) would be better without? Any thoughts on if or how perpretrators of crimes against humanity should be prosecuted?