|
Iraq & International Law (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| JohnSmith |
well, to be completely honest, I am not familiar with the situation in the Ivory Coast. I am aware that many, many injustices have been made against the people of the african continent, and indeed against many of the worlds people, not the least of them, the native people in america and canada.
I agree, these are problems that needs to be solved, and this is precisely what the UN is for. However, not knowing too much about these problems, i keep out of debates on them.
I have only become interested in geopolitical affairs since september 11th, and have only researched the affairs of the middle east, and hence i spoke out about wars in afghanistan, and will continue to speak out against the war in iraq.
As for Kofi Annan being a hypocrite, that is debatable, and i don't have the background to argue either side. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
while i agree that this is pretty much true i don't think it's right. If we agree that "a law is only a law if it's enforceable" we have completely abandoned democracy, and have gone back to the law of the playground where the biggest bully sets the rules.
I for one, do not accept this point of view, and will continue to speak out against it until the situation is rectified
(or I am silenced by the bully i guess) :nervous: |
The problem with international law is it really doesn't have any source of legitimacy other than each sovereign nation's agreement to abide by it. This does not make for a very stable legal system, as any country can choose to instantly disregard it, and the only way to force them into compliance is with yet another war.
I do think we should aspire to rise above this state of affairs, but I don't think it is realistic to believe that international law presently provides us with a good basis for analyzing the merits or demerits of a sovereign nation's chosen course of action. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The problem with international law is it really doesn't have any source of legitimacy other than each sovereign nation's agreement to abide by it. This does not make for a very stable legal system, as any country can choose to instantly disregard it, and the only way to force them into compliance is with yet another war.
I do think we should aspire to rise above this state of affairs, but I don't think it is realistic to believe that international law presently provides us with a good basis for analyzing the merits or demerits of a sovereign nation's chosen course of action. |
No joke you are an idealist, I'd rather see the soverignty of many countries abiding by a general concenus and fighting it out when one violates the other then be subjected to the tyranny of a one world government. |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | The problem with international law is it really doesn't have any source of legitimacy other than each sovereign nation's agreement to abide by it. This does not make for a very stable legal system, as any country can choose to instantly disregard it, and the only way to force them into compliance is with yet another war. |
The fact that a country doesnt recognise a rule of international law does not mean it doesnt apply to them.
Japan did not recognise Geneva Convention in WW2 and many Japanese soldiers got what they deserved at the end of the war for their treatment of allied POW's.
The fact the USA and all the other usual suspects dont recognise the validity of the International War Crimes Tribunal doesnt mean one day their politicians and soldiers wont one day be hauled before it and deservedly punished for their crimes.
Waging a "pre-emptive" war on a country that isnt directly going to attack you is a crime. It is that simple. Although I am sure the punishment that the arabs are going to meet out for this crime against them will be far worse than what the Hague will give. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
Not to mention that the US has passed a law that "authorizes" them to use force if neccesary to avoid having any american soldier arrested by the ICC, or even to "liberate" them from this organization. Can't remember where i heard that, i will find a source later i hope.
It really pisses me off, that the US refuses to participate in this. They are the biggest war criminals around, and not having them a part of this makes the whole great idea of the ICC fall flat on it's face.
it reminds me of the american spin on the patriot act and other such invasions of privacy. "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" maybe they should apply that logic to joining the ICC and they will see that they have been doing wrong for a long time. |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
...
It really pisses me off, that the US refuses to participate in this. They are the biggest war criminals around, and not having them a part of this makes the whole great idea of the ICC fall flat on it's face.
... |
so who is going to step up and do something then? protesters? and who is to say that saddam/(other opressive regimes) killing his/their own people any better? would sanctioning the US peacefully change this idea of 'war criminality'? if this is such a big problem than the world better step up and do something! sadly i think too much of the world is so obsessed with a perceived fear of the US they wont| |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
They [US] are the biggest war criminals around, and not having them a part of this makes the whole great idea of the ICC fall flat on it's face.
|
Hmmm... now why would the US never want to join the ICC? I'm sure it can't be because like minded people such as your sort already believe that the USA is "the biggest war criminal" around and would probably make sure to use the ICC against the US because of this unfounded believe in unproportional context to other alleged-criminals of the world. Nah that surely would not be it - after all its not like any international governing body/organization has been used as a political institution... I've never heard of such a silly thing indeed:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
it reminds me of the american spin on the patriot act and other such invasions of privacy. "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" maybe they should apply that logic to joining the ICC and they will see that they have been doing wrong for a long time. |
I agree that the two are analagous. That's why I am opposed to both. I don't trust my government with the power to invade my privacy with the patriot act. And likewise, I sure as hell don't trust the ICC to investigate allegations objectively, or to enforce its policies equitably. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
The fact the USA and all the other usual suspects dont recognise the validity of the International War Crimes Tribunal doesnt mean one day their politicians and soldiers wont one day be hauled before it and deservedly punished for their crimes.
|
Did you read my response to renegade when he posted about the "International War Crimes Tribunal"??? NOBODY recognizes the international war crimes tribunal because it's not affiliated with any world body of politics at all!!! It's a hokey organization that took an official sounding name so they can SEEM affilitated with the UN. Take a look at the judges of this "tribunal," they are all left-wing peace activists. They provided no supporting evidence for their "convictions" and they only prosecute the United States! NOBODY else! What does that tell you? What are they gonna do when politicians are hauled in front of them??? Place them under citizen's arrest??? What a joke ... |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Hmmm... now why would the US never want to join the ICC? I'm sure it can't be because like minded people such as your sort already believe that the USA is "the biggest war criminal" around and would probably make sure to use the ICC against the US because of this unfounded believe in unproportional context to other alleged-criminals of the world. |
hmm.. so, your logic distilled is that the US doesn't want to join the ICC, because people might try to prosecute them for their crimes? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
hmm.. so, your logic distilled is that the US doesn't want to join the ICC, because people might try to prosecute them for their crimes? |
Did anybody even read the reasons why the US is rejecting the ICC? Or is everybody simply passing judgement before they understand the issues at hand?
| quote: |
The Right Way To End the ICC Impasse
by John C. Hulsman, Ph.D. and Brett D. Schaefer
Executive Memorandum #822
July 8, 2002 | |
The United States incited international furor this week when it vetoed renewal of the mandate for the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina under consideration by the U.N. Security Council. The United States expressed concern that the new International Criminal Court (ICC) would attempt to prosecute U.S. soldiers who participate in the peacekeeping operation even through the United States has not ratified the ICC treaty.
The U.S. veto should come as no surprise to ICC proponents. America's serious objections to the ICC are well-known, and U.S. representatives gave clear warning that it would consider vetoing U.N. peacekeeping operations once the ICC entered into force. President George W. Bush must fulfill his responsibility as Commander in Chief to protect American soldiers and citizens from the threat of spurious prosecution by a court that has no lawful right to try and punish U.S. nationals. Unless a compromise can be forged that satisfies America's deep concerns, U.S. participation in and support for future U.N. peacekeeping operations is uncertain.
To end the impasse, the United States has proposed that the Security Council determine whether individuals serving in a U.N. peacekeeping operation may be brought before the ICC. This position is fully supported by the U.N. Charter, which vests the Council with responsibility for maintaining global peace and security. No single state may authorize a U.N. mission, and no state or group of states can interfere with its activities. Thus, only the Security Council is in a position to determine whether criminal prosecution of peacekeepers by the ICC may be appropriate. Otherwise, the ICC would be in a position to interfere with the Council's authority and obligations enshrined in the U.N. Charter, to which ICC nations are party.
This reasonable approach would allow the United States to veto prosecutions it considers without merit, safeguarding Americans' democratic rights while allowing the United States to continue working with the U.N. on missions around the world. If such a compromise is not forged, the Administration should end U.S. participation in peacekeeping missions.
Source of America's Concern. As an unaccountable legal bureaucracy claiming the authority to arrest, prosecute, and punish nationals from any country who are accused of war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and the undefined crime of aggression, the ICC invites political manipulation. The United States must protect its citizens from a court that would not observe such basic rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.
Under accepted norms of international law, the ICC should not even be a U.S. concern, since the United States has not ratified the treaty establishing it. Indeed, President Bush has "unsigned" the Rome Statute, notifying the Secretary General of the United Nations that the United States will not ratify it. A bedrock principle of the international system is that treaties and treaty organizations cannot be imposed on states without their consent. The statute violates international law by claiming that the ICC has authority to prosecute and punish the nationals of countries that are not party to it.
President Bill Clinton waited until the last possible day, December 31, 2000, to sign the statute, expressing grave misgivings over that "flawed" treaty. His reasoning was that America needed a voice in the deliberations over the ICC's structure so that its serious concerns could be properly addressed. But America's efforts to change the ICC's structure were rejected by most of the other nations involved in the negotiations. The threat became very real on July 1, 2002, with the Rome Statute entering into force after the required 60 nations--many of them undemocratic and few having a major role in enforcing international peace--had ratified it.
In May 2002, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John D. Negroponte explained America's concerns when the U.S. voted to continue the U.N. Mission of Support for East Timor. On June 20, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer echoed those sentiments, stating that "the United States is very concerned about U.S. forces on U.N. peacekeeping missions, and that they may be subject to politically motivated prosecutions by the ICC." Proponents of the ICC who chose to ignore these warnings professed outrage when the United States followed through on its concerns and acted to protect its citizens on June 30.
The debate is about nothing less than the fundamental question of where ultimate authority lies--with national sovereignty, which holds the only possibility of democratic accountability, or with unaccountable and opaque international bureaucracies that have no direct democratic link to the people over which they claim jurisdiction. Given this question of first principles, President Bush was right to state that the United States would not reauthorize the Bosnia mission. The furor that arose obscures the main imperative: U.S. military personnel must be protected from the possibility of politically manipulated prosecution if the United States is to participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions.
The Way Forward. In an effort to overcome this impasse, the Administration has proposed a 12-month immunity from ICC prosecution for soldiers on U.N. peacekeeping missions who do not represent countries that are party to the Rome Statute. This period would be used to forge a compromise on using the Security Council to arbitrate over potential cases that involve U.N. peacekeepers. The ICC would be able to investigate and prosecute a case against a peacekeeper only if the Security Council were to vote its approval.
This reasonable solution is consistent with the principles outlined in the Rome Statute. By their nature, U.N. peacekeeping operations are not authorized by a single state and are accountable to the Security Council. Its members should be viewed collectively as the authorizing body alone equipped to determine whether a criminal investigation by another international body is appropriate. Such a process, given an American veto possibility, would provide ample opportunity for the United States to protect Americans while participating in and supporting U.N. peacekeeping. If such a sensible compromise is shunned, the Administration should continue to veto renewals of peacekeeping extensions.
Conclusion. It is not in the interests of the United States or the United Nations to perpetuate this impasse. The United States has proposed a reasonable compromise--placing the U.N. Security Council, as the ultimate authorizing body, in a position to determine whether ICC investigation of U.N. peacekeepers is appropriate. If other nations truly believe the international system can enforce justice through the ICC, they should not object to giving the international institution charged with protecting international peace a say in cases that come before it.
|
Also additional issues at stake include several ambiguous statements in the ICC statute that could force the United States to change its constitution in order to comply. And that is something the US will never do. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
Thanks occrider, interesting read. I think that the compromise is a good one. However, i wonder why the US is the only country that has objections?
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
so who is going to step up and do something then? protesters? and who is to say that saddam/(other opressive regimes) killing his/their own people any better? would sanctioning the US peacefully change this idea of 'war criminality'? if this is such a big problem than the world better step up and do something! sadly i think too much of the world is so obsessed with a perceived fear of the US they wont| |
a good question. I like to believe that eventually, the protestors, boycotts, grass roots social movements, international and domestic pressure will have an effect.
| quote: |
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has
- Margaret Mead
|
However, I am not optimistic that this will happen anytime while George Bush is in power, he's simply to arrogant. I have hope for the future though. |
|
|
|
|
