TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- International Criminal Court

International Criminal Court

the rome statuate for international criminal court, under the UN, entered into exsistance this july.
what are your opinions on this?
here is some info to get aquinted with the topic:
www.iccnow.org
Q&A on the International Criminal Court -
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/icc...Q&AJuly2002.pdf
History of the International Criminal Court -
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/iccbasics/History.pdf
American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal -Court http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm
Both Sides Lose - http://www.economist.com/displaySto...tory_ID=1234795
Right to the Brink - http://www.economist.com/displaysto...tory_id=1217747


*** edit ***
ok i've been reading up on the topic for the past 3 or 4 hours and have finally come to a conclusion. i am agianst the ICC. the views of henry kissinger influenced me the most, and i agree with his view
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/K..._Juris_Kis.html

The International Criminal Court is an excellent idea, but it is doomed from the start due to opposition from the usual suspects.

The world will be a much safer place if the criminal regimes are accountable. The Americans, Israelis and Russians rightly fear that were a ICC their leaders and soldiers would be charged with war crimes and they rightly fear that they would be found guilty.

The only people who should be afraid of law courts are criminals.

I only hope to live to see the day that the tyrants and their lackeys of this world get punished for their crimes.

Sadly I cant see that happening. In this world you have to take the law into your own hands if you want justice.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The world will be a much safer place if the criminal regimes are accountable. The Americans, Israelis and Russians rightly fear that were a ICC their leaders and soldiers would be charged with war crimes and they rightly fear that they would be found guilty.

Yeah but it's not exactly realistically enforceable. What's to stop an American or Russian leader, for instance, from saying "Ok, good for you, but I don't recognize your court, and if you try to do anything about it I'll nuke you, m'kay?" - nothing.

You'd have to fight a war just to enforce the decisions of the court. I don't see what use such an institution could possibly be.

i just came back from a panel discussion about this topic here at my university. tomorrow i will be participating in a small roundtable discussion about this topic with other students and profs.

anyways the topic is very interesting.

i've learned that in general yesm, i agree in a broad sense to some universal laws that should be enforced so yes there is a need for an international court with jurisdiction to adress these issues. subjects such as murder of civilians, war crimes, genocide, rape and other grave breaches of the geneva convetion.

however the current court set in place has far too weak a foundation and is really at the early stages of its development, thus now i dont belive it should have any power. and i agree to the fact that america will not be a signatory of the statuate (the only problem being that if it were to sign on it would have more influence in bringing around changes to the statuate - but then agian the US has enough influence now). more provisions should be set out and ammendments should be done. also when getting down to exact details one should remember that all countries will have their own views as to legality of specific issues, after all every single human on earth has his own view of morals and justice. the system now can too easily be exploited for political moves and gains. furthermore the representation (as in the UN) is not as fair as it should be from country to country. there is no need to rush to such things because the status quo is actually doing a fine job. the ad hoc war tribunals for milosovic and rwanda are fairing well at addressing the crimes. furthermore developed countries have a good record of putting to justice their own people who have committed international crimes... especially the cases in countries like america where all procedings of such crimes are made public to the entire world.

Hrm. very interesting izzy. I will read all of your links, and probably some more before i state my final opinion.

at this point however, i will say that i support the ICC before even looking.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Hrm. very interesting izzy. I will read all of your links, and probably some more before i state my final opinion. at this point however, i will say that i support the ICC before even looking.

Ya thats interesting... sometimes I have preconcieved ideas of wether I adhere or protest a solution, without being fully informed (hence it is pre-concieved). I am curious if you will change your opinion, or stick to it though with more info. I have been known to do both.

Obviously info from the links of the iccnow.org site are going to be presented in away that is very partial FOR the icc. Personally I am against it, and believe in the hegemonic theory and the rule of force to exact justice.

yes, i agree.

I have changed my stance sometimes, for example in regards to the olympics as i mentioned in this thread:

http://tester.tranceaddict.com/foru...&threadid=73830

Unfortunately, the thread promptly died after i posted, which was dismaying.

The US have made a law that makes it possible to invade Holland so that they can free any American prisoners

who the hell do they think they are!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Blik The US have made a law that makes it possible to invade Holland so that they can free any American prisoners who the hell do they think they are!!!

yesterday i had my roundtable discussion with 7 other students and a prof about the topic (needless to say i 0wned the debate). that specific thing came up.
its not a law but rather a policy, but ya that official state department's policy says that because the US is not a signator of the ICC if a case were to present itself that an american were to be prosecuted and taken to the ICC (the ICC has jurisdiction to prosocute even people who had not signed on to the treaty if a crime happened in one of the countries that had signed on), america would see that as an attack agianst its soverignty and so would use force if nessacry to ensure their safety back to the US. so ya if a case like that were to happen, america would invade a fellow NATO member (netherlands, being the home of the ICC), pretty interesting scenerio.

john smith, ya sorry about that other post that got bogged down... i was pretty busy then and didnt have time to follow up on it (got two exams on monday as well )

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy john smith, ya sorry about that other post that got bogged down... i was pretty busy then and didnt have time to follow up on it (got two exams on monday as well )

s'ok, it's not your fault.

as for the US and it's declaration that it is "allowed" to "liberate" it's people in the event they were captured by the ICC..

wow. that is really all i can say.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith as for the US and it's declaration that it is "allowed" to "liberate" it's people in the event they were captured by the ICC.. wow. that is really all i can say.

ya, wow, what a government!! One that would even declare war just to free it's own citizens! I think I'm about to cry Such a beackon of government.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The International Criminal Court is an excellent idea, but it is doomed from the start due to opposition from the usual suspects. The world will be a much safer place if the criminal regimes are accountable. The Americans, Israelis and Russians rightly fear that were a ICC their leaders and soldiers would be charged with war crimes and they rightly fear that they would be found guilty.

Heh, perhaps the Palastinians, Chechens, Al-Queda would also fear the wrath of an International criminal court seeing as how some of these groups have been responcible for war crimes as well.

Yassir Arafat would be a nice person to try at an ICC.

the only thing that bother me with the ICC is that it can persecute people that took part in events that were before the ICC was even formed. this is against any logic, and this descredits it because who will the ICC chose next? Saddam? Kissinger? Bush sr? etc etc... the choice will be more political than anything else. And a court driven by politics can't be given importance because it being partial.

the ICC should start running after criminals that are acting now... that would be fair and credible.

just an (lame)illustration, imagine a new court that punishes premarital sex and start running after those who commited it before the creation of court and laws... that wouldn't be fair. also who would it punish? this fellow ? or that one? the latter being the son of an important figure. now politics enter into effect because the father of the latter start pressuring the court and its member ... etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek the only thing that bother me with the ICC is that it can persecute people that took part in events that were before the ICC was even formed.

no dont worry, its not retro-active. in order for the ICC to prosicute someone the crime would have to have been done after its founding.

oh shit i mistaken it with the court that brought milosevic to justice... nevermind.

Just out of interest, what would happen when someone brought before the court was found guilty?

I know it would have to vary from case to case, but generally, what would the punishment be? If it's imprisonment, where would this prison be, and who would be responsible for running it? And what about where different countries have different ideas about "justice" - by what criteria would they decide the nature of the punishment?

most of that information is in the links i proveded (the FAQ one).
recent political manuevering has almost assured that the UN will have some power to control the ICC (or at least the ones on the security council). those judged would be prosacuted only for those crimes which the statuate declares as such, and by signing onto the statuate you would then be obliged to follow those rules. the ICC is set up in the Haugge (sp is wrong i know, sorry) and would use the current facilities that hold political prisoners (ie the future home of milosevic). the penatlies are basicly jail sentences up to life (or 50 years i think).

but ya that may pose some problems because certian crimes would for example be served a death sentence if they were tried in other countries. for example another wierd outcome would be if america had caught ossama and gave him a death sentence after a trail the ICC has the autority to come in and say we arent pleased with your court and we are going to try him in the ICC...

also about the prosecution of war crimes, they are still not detailed enough and unjust imo. for example israel could be tried for shooting into civilian areas or at ambulances when infact it was the palestinians who frist broke geneva convention by using civlian residential areas as base of military operations, or lack of wearing a military uniform, or using ambulances to smuggle weapons and militants. the geneva convention is a treaty not law, i fail to see why if one side breaks the treaty (or any treaty for that matter) the other must oblige to it as well.

maybe because two wrongs don't make a right...

what you described, is a guerilla warfare not a conventional war, the Geneva convention is mostly about conventional warfare.

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