TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US to give up resistance to the ICC?

US to give up resistance to the ICC?

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has started a thread on this already. To me it seems to be very good news, although I expect occrider to be quite disappointed at this news.

Link

Full text:

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In the face of strong opposition from other Security Council members the United States has announced it is dropping a resolution that would exempt its soldiers from international prosecution.

Washington had failed to find the votes needed to support its draft resolution, which would have given one "final" year of exemption from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

The resolution needed a minimum nine votes in favor from the 15 Security Council members for it to pass.

"We believe that our draft and its predecessors fairly meet the concerns of all," U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations James Cunningham said after a closed council meeting on Wednesday.

"Not all council members agree, however, and the United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate."

In a written statement a spokesman for Kofi Annan said the the U.N. secretary-general felt "the decision by the United States not to pursue a resolution on this matter will help maintain the unity of the Security Council at a time when it faces difficult challenges."

Criticism of U.S. abuses in Iraq's the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal became a decisive factor for Security Council members.

China's ambassador to the United Nations, Wang Guangya, said "the scandal over the mistreatment" was behind that nation's decision to abstain. He also said his government could not "give a blank check to the U.S. for the behavior of their forces."

None of the alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq would have fallen under the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction as neither Iraq nor the United States signed on to the ICC treaty.

The Spanish Ambassador to the U.N. said the Secretary General's comments opposing exemption from the International Criminal had a "powerful effect" on Spain's decision not to support the United States.

Speaking to reporters, Annan appealed for Security Council unity Friday. Thursday he had said, "Blanket exemption is wrong, it is of dubious judicial value, and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council."
Future missions in doubt

The Bush administration fiercely opposes the International Criminal Court, fearing frivolous or politically driven war crimes prosecutions against Americans abroad. But in practice, the court's statutes make it unlikely an American would face trial.

The International Criminal Court is considered a tribunal of "last resort" said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch.

The tribunal would hear only complaints against a person from a nation that was unable or unwilling to investigate potential war crimes.

The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, went into effect in March 2003.

This was the third year the United States tried to renew exemption for its troops on U.N.-approved peacekeeping missions.

The U.S.-drafted resolution was first approved in 2002 after the United States vetoed a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, and threatened to prevent further U.N. missions unless the council endorsed its exemption.

The U.S. secured passage of the resolution a second time last year when three countries abstained. Immunity for the United States expires on June 30, the same day the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority hands over sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government

It is unclear what the repercussions of the U.S. decision to withdraw the resolution will be. "The United States will need to take into account the risk of ICC review when determining contributions to U.N.-authorized or -established operations," Cunningham said

Security Council diplomats also said Cunningham told the council in the closed meeting that failure to approve exemption could be a chilling factor for U.S. involvement in Security Council peace operations.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States will examine "case by case" whether to take part in current or future peacekeeping missions without the immunity provision.

"We will have to take into account the lack of this resolution as we look at our various obligations and the way we proceed overseas," Boucher said. "We'll be doing that in the coming days."

The United States has signed bilateral agreements with 90 countries guaranteeing that American personnel serving in those countries will not be handed over for prosecution by the ICC.

"We will continue very actively to seek international arrangements which guarantee the protection of our troops," Cunningham said.

Well, it seems like the US government finally realized that further degradation of foreign relations could start to show its negative impact on the country and that the unilatteral approach is not the brightest possible idea for solving troublesome situations. Oh, well, better late than never.

The US was only trying to secure in one document what they had been individually getting from many nations around the world - waivers from prosecution. As it states in the article, however, it didn't matter whether we we got the immunity or not. We're not subject to the ICC, since we didn't sign on to the treaty. Rather than have the immunity resolution fail, the US withdrew it.

It hardly means the US has assented to the treaty.

quote:

None of the alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq would have fallen under the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction as neither Iraq nor the United States signed on to the ICC treaty.

Now that only leaves the likes of China, Russia, India a bunch of the Middle Eastern countries to name a few who have not ratified or even acknowledged the ICC's existence but the U.S. is the only one being criticized, hypocrisy at its best. Why would Russia when they commit beastial acts in Chechnya, China with their army in Tibet, we all know how great both of their domestic justice system is but they have the audacity to crititicize the U.S, okay.

As far as I know, the ICC still violates the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 says that the highest court the United States can have is the Supreme Court. It says that Congress can only establish Courts that are inferior to this Supreme Court. The way the ICC would work, it would actually in certain situations be able to trump the rulings of the Supreme Court. It also in some circumstances does not allow for a trial by jury, the right to know one's accusers as well as double jeopardy protection, again all rights established under the U.S. Constitution. I do not see a need for this court, but as said before the U.S. continues not to ratify the ICC, so there really is no story in the U.S. dropping its resolution attempt.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono As far as I know, the ICC still violates the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 says that the highest court the United States can have is the Supreme Court. It says that Congress can only establish Courts that are inferior to this Supreme Court. The way the ICC would work, it would actually in certain situations be able to trump the rulings of the Supreme Court. It also in some circumstances does not allow for a trial by jury, the right to know one's accusers as well as double jeopardy protection, again all rights established under the U.S. Constitution. I do not see a need for this court, but as said before the U.S. continues not to ratify the ICC, so there really is no story in the U.S. dropping its resolution attempt.

Yes the ICC does supercede the constitution and not only that, the court would have jurisdiction of crimes committed anywhere within the US and over any case even if that person were to be tried and acquitted by a jury.

The only ramifications of this decision is that the US will probably be less likely to send peacekeepers abroad. Much to the satisfaction of most of the world I'm sure, except for the country that needs the peacekeepers.

ohh the hypocracy! how many other countries haven't ceded power to the ICC?

what the f**k EVAR!!!!!!!!!!

It's a meaningless move.

The American Servicemembers' Protection Act prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC and authorizes the President to use "all means necessary" to free U.S. personnel detained by the ICC.

The translation is that whether or not U.S. personnel have "immunity," it would be a bad idea to try to detain them, unless you're fond of seeing your cities turn to rubble.

Yes that would make US even more popular than it is now, blowingup somebody becouse they are detaining a guilty person.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Yes that would make US even more popular than it is now, blowingup somebody becouse they are detaining a guilty person.

I'm sure. But at this point it ought to be rather obvious that the US doesn't particularly care about popularity.

So where's the discussion about procecuting terrorist bastards like Al-Zarqawi and his band of thugs in the UN? Guess they figure the US will take them about with firepower and they won't have to worry about it. Beheading people without trials seems to be their norm.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Now that only leaves the likes of China, Russia, India a bunch of the Middle Eastern countries to name a few who have not ratified or even acknowledged the ICC's existence but the U.S. is the only one being criticized, hypocrisy at its best. Why would Russia when they commit beastial acts in Chechnya, China with their army in Tibet, we all know how great both of their domestic justice system is but they have the audacity to crititicize the U.S, okay.

The reason why the US is being criticized more than the others in this case, is because we haven't given up on you guys yet
Seriously, the US portrays itself as a modern free nation with a belief in personal responsibility. Furthermore, as far as I know the US was a driving force for the establishment of the UN. China, on the other hand, puts little effort into being percieved as your moral equivalent. The same can be said about Russia.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'm sure. But at this point it ought to be rather obvious that the US doesn't particularly care about popularity.

Just out of curiousity, and to place you more accurately on my internal map of Internet personalities: Are you yourself indifferent to this indifference? Or do you care?
And what about your new avatar - what does the symbol mean?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Just out of curiousity, and to place you more accurately on my internal map of Internet personalities: Are you yourself indifferent to this indifference? Or do you care?

In general I think it is good to be able to stand up for what you believe in even when everyone else tells you it is wrong: so I am not too strongly opposed to the fact that the US is willing to ignore international pressure.

However, I think it would be wise to maintain better relationships with other countries when possible. There's a difference between holding strong convictions and pigheaded arrogance, and the US all-too-frequently seems to cross that line and unnecessarily agitate potential allies with inane chest-beating and even childish insults.

quote:

And what about your new avatar - what does the symbol mean?

Hahahaha, it's the symbol of the "Church of Chris." A friend of mine came up with it several years ago. Back in those days we used to go around to churches at night and remove the 't' from Christ. My first name is Chris, so "Church of Chris" became a bit of an inside joke.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Hahahaha, it's the symbol of the "Church of Chris." A friend of mine came up with it several years ago. Back in those days we used to go around to churches at night and remove the 't' from Christ. My first name is Chris, so "Church of Chris" became a bit of an inside joke.

Hehe, must feel nice to walk by and see a church dedicated to you

I fail to see what all the fuss is about. As mentioned in the article quoted in the OP, even if the US were to sign on to the ICC the chances of a US citizen being brought to trial there would be quite slim given the nature of the cases the ICC was designed to hear. Please read the Rome Statute and tell me that any of the claims made by the US in its refusal to sign are valid:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/basi...ts/rome_statute(e).pdf

quote:

Now that only leaves the likes of China, Russia, India a bunch of the Middle Eastern countries to name a few who have not ratified or even acknowledged the ICC's existence but the U.S. is the only one being criticized, hypocrisy at its best.

quote:

ohh the hypocracy! how many other countries haven't ceded power to the ICC? what the f**k EVAR!!!!!!!!!!

This is a not a valid argument. Just because other countries have failed to ratify the ICC it does not excuse the US from doing so.

(Although I agree that much more pressure should be placed on Russia and China to:

a) Sign the statute.

and

b) More importantly, begin to comply international law in their regional conflicts with Chechnya and Tibet respectively.)

quote:

As far as I know, the ICC still violates the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 says that the highest court the United States can have is the Supreme Court. It says that Congress can only establish Courts that are inferior to this Supreme Court.

The ICC - if administered as it is meant to - would not violate this part of the consitution. US courts would not be bound to decisions made by the ICC (which is the basis of judicial heirarchy) and cases would only be brought before the ICC in the event that the US refused to prosecute those suspected of crimes under the ICC's jurisdiction. There is also a difference between establishing a domestic court of law and legitimising an international effort to prosecute those guilty of breaking the most heinous of international laws. It would only be unconstitutional if the US were to grant the ICC legitimacy over its domestic laws rather than ratified international law (which it wouldn't be) and placed it above the Supreme Court in the judicial heirarchy (which, again, it wouldn't be - the Supreme Court would remain at the top of the heirarchy for all cases involving domestic law and - depending on the circumstances - international law as well).

quote:

The way the ICC would work, it would actually in certain situations be able to trump the rulings of the Supreme Court.

I don't think so.

Rome Statute, Article 17:

quote:

1. [...]The court shall determine that a case is inadmissable where: a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it, unless the state is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the state has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inabilty of the state genuinely to prosecute;

Article 20:

quote:

3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also prescribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the court with respect to the same conduct [...]: [Unless trial was unjust / demonstrably rigged etc.]

Put simply, if an individual is brought to trial in the US then they cannot be re-tried in the ICC. In fact, the US can actually cancel and overturn ICC trials if it begins prosecuting the accused domestically (see Article 19).

quote:

It also in some circumstances does not allow for a trial by jury

How would a trial by jury with regards to such horrendous crimes work? How would they be selected and where would they be selected from? Wouldn't a bench of judges qualified in international law be more preferable and ensure a fairer trial?

quote:

the right to know one's accusers

Where did you get this from? Protection and selective anonimity would obviously be extended to the witnesses (see Article 68) but it would be no different to the protection offered in serious cases heard domestically in the US and most other nations.

quote:

as well as double jeopardy protection

If a person is cleared of a crime, the trial cannot be re-opened unless a series of strict criteria are met (i.e. error in law, mistrial, new evidence uncovered etc. - see Part 8, Articles 81-83). I fail to see any significant difference between these rules and those applicable in the US.

quote:

I do not see a need for this court

The court is a last resort in the event of a gross failure of justice. If there ever is such a gross failure of justice, then such a court is most definitely necessary.

quote:

Yes the ICC does supercede the constitution and not only that, the court would have jurisdiction of crimes committed anywhere within the US

Don't over-react to the scope of jurisdiction held by the ICC. Yes an individual could be arrested by the ICC for crimes committed on US soil, but remember that we're only talking about the most gruesome and severe crimes known to humanity - they are extremely rare, and will most likely not occur on US soil in the forseeable future (god willing). Secondly, if the US bring the accused to trial for committing these crimes, then - regardless of the verdict - the ICC has absolutely no jurisdiction to prosecute this person.

So the only occasion in which this worst case scenario (a US citizen being prosecuted for crimes committed on US soil) would occur is if someone committed a horrendous crime and the US DoJ refused to prosecute them. Then, even presuming that Mr Ashcroft was quite happy to turn a blind eye to the genocide occurring in his own country, the ICC can only take the accused to trial if the DoJ arrested him and willingly turned him over (see article 59) - can you really ever see the US being that co-operative in the prosecution of one of its own citizens?

So once again, don't overstate the jurisdiction of the ICC. They deal only in very rare, very serious crimes and only have jurisdiction if the state in which these crimes took place are unwilling or unable to prosecute the accused. The US - with a fair, open and efficient legal system - has nothing to fear from the ICC. You can tell from the nature and scope of its jurisdiction that the ICC mainly exists to prosecute those who have committed crimes in nations with a corrupt or inadequate legal system such that prosecution and conviction for the terrible crimes would be unattainable. The US will likely not be affected by the ICC at all in this regard.

quote:

and over any case even if that person were to be tried and acquitted by a jury.

As I said before, that's incorrect. See comments made to Neophono.

Renegade,

Before I attempt to disect what you have said, I would ask you: what crimes committed throughout the history of the the US would require the ICC? Does the United States have a history of not trying criminals within its boundry? Why does the US need an international "oversight" court, save for the use of other nations to bring to trial individuals it deems fit? If the gravest of crimes (as you said were needed for the ICC to act) were committed within the US or by US nationals, I have every confidence that the US could take care of the trial themselves. So again, what function would it perform other than giving other nations the ability to try US citizens as it saw fit? I really see no other reason for the court. The US justice system does have its shortfalls, as any justice system has. However, I do not see any glaring omissions where haneous crimes have been comitted without recourse. And judging by the effectiveness and politique that occur in other international organizations (cough, cough the UN), this seems like a mess waiting to happen.

Neophono, I'm not suggesting that the US sign onto the ICC because I believe that there are US citizens going unpunished for heinous crimes they have committed around the world (the Abu Grayib incident demonstrates that the US are mindful of punishing those who transgress international law) but because the world - not just the US - needs a last recourse to ensure that no-one guilty of such crimes goes unpunished. As I said before:

quote:

The court is a last resort in the event of a gross failure of justice. If there ever is such a gross failure of justice, then such a court is most definitely necessary.

There is not likely to be such a gross failure of justice in the US (or any other well developed western nation) but do you not agree that there needs to be a system like this in place to insure against such an occurrence? If you read the rules the ICC has for bringing an individual to trial, you can see that it would be virtually impossible to bring someone to trial either for purely political reasons or on a whimsical charge, so the US cannot claim that the ICC will allow it to become victimised by hostile nations without valid reason. The court does not exist to actively prosecute anyone who breaks international law, it is there to ensure that such individuals cannot be protected from prosecution by unscrupulous officials. If the US had refused to charge and convict those involved in the Abu Grahib, do you not agree that there should have been some other authority to bring them to justice?

I firmly believe that international laws and treaties need to be legitimised by an international body with the jurisdiction to prosecute those guilty of breaking international law and that the ICC provides this facility. The only reason the US is reluctant to sign onto the ICC is because the moral hegemony it has established since WW2 - that it has both the power and will to propogate - is being challenged by a coalition of "united nations". If the US legitimately believes in justice and democracy on a global scale, though, then it is within its best interests to ensure that the ICC succeeds.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.