GREAT NEWS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

[Nickademus]

I just thought that some of you would like to know (I know i'm quite happy about it) that the ICC (international criminal court) statute got 66 ratifications tody. THE ICC will come into force on July 1st. This is huge step forward in the fight for human rights.

[alphaq]

ofcourse the US refuses to ratify.

[Nickademus]

naturally, but i relly think its important to continue with this initiative and show the US that we don't necessarily need them.

[vox]

Hopefully, the court will be a judicial body rather than an overtly political body. With that said, however, I think that it's a very good step in the right direction.

vox

[Angie]

I'm in agreement with vox. It's a good step, so long as it's in the right direction. At this point, it sounds alright, but worth keeping an eye on all the same.

[Derar]

The US has been violating human rights , in its prisons , land ...... and in other countries in the world .
But no one ever could have done anything about it , and no one will ...... at least for a long time !

[Nickademus]

Quote: from Derar on 2:21 am on April 12, 2002
The US has been violating human rights , in its prisons , land ...... and in other countries in the world .
But no one ever could have done anything about it , and no one will ...... at least for a long time !

I agree with you. but most contries are currently violating human rights....even Canada ....look at what we continue to do to the First Nations, the Metis and the Inuit....

but we have to start somewhere...and if we perhaps alter the jursidiction of the court later on to include the united states by giving the ICC jurisidiction over customary international law and jus cogens then perhaps someday the united states, and the rest of the world, while finally have to face up to what they have done in the past.

[Nickademus]

wow 6 replies...3 of which are mine.....

this is really starting to scare me....where are all those who used to love discussing this kind of thing.....

no wonder i'm not here that often

[deimos]

i agree with nick: Lets show the americans that we don't need them!

[STALINSOLDIERS]

usa shall president shall be jailed for doin killings so shall go foir sharon isrealie president.........its like this do you remeber when europe were pushing usa to join to fight against global warming and usa ignored them. cause if they do join the economy well die. ( that shows that capitalism doesnt care about the world or humans or animals ) well if usa was to go to court they well refuse and might fight against those who wants them in jail. this country is the biggest dictator of all time.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Nickademus on 6:21 pm on April 11, 2002
THE ICC will come into force on July 1st.
Does anyone have the details on their jurisdiction? Hopefully, it will have more power than the tribunals that convicted the US of crimes against humanity in Nicaragua but was powerless when it came to actually handing out punishment.

Even if the International Criminal Court does become an overtly political body, they would still have a hard time convicting people who didn't violate human rights. I would rather see punishment handed out to human rights abusers who are anti-American than no punishment handed out at all. This is a lot like the days when Milosevic's trial was headline news and a few people had the gall to say that he shouldn't be tried. I don't care what a person's position on globalization or McDonald's is--if they kill people, especially if they kill large numbers of people, they should be punished severely! I don't mean to seem as if I'm railing on you, vox, but it's all too often that the Left focuses its energy on fighting anything that smells the tiniest bit of US interest instead of appreciating any small step in the right direction.


Quote: from STALINSOLDIERS on 6:07 pm on April 13, 2002
its like this do you remeber when europe were pushing usa to join to fight against global warming and usa ignored them. cause if they do join the economy well die. ( that shows that capitalism doesnt care about the world or humans or animals ) well if usa was to go to court they well refuse and might fight against those who wants them in jail.First of all, most (if not all) of the nations that did ratify the Kyoto treaty are capitalist, even though some are less capitalist than America. You need to see the distinction between capitalism and the United States. (Europe is chock-full o' capitalists, imperialists and neo-liberals, too.) And second of all, the International Criminal Court would do more than put people in jail.

The only polite thing to do would be to end this post with an apology to Nickademus for not seeing this thread sooner--I hope you can fogive me. :)

[vox]

No problem, Lindsay. Like I said, I think that it is a step in the right direction. Personally, I'm big on human rights and I'm cautiously optimistic about the ICC.

For a bit more about it, you may want to look at this article from the Times of London:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0411-02.htm

vox

[Valkyrie]

I hope, hope, hope, hope, hope, hope, hope.

It's hard not to be cynical with all the shit going on.


What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Why does that seem like a worthless piece of paper?

How is this ICC going to be set up? What kind of structure I mean? Is it going to operate like a court with a judge and jury or is it going to be a commission?

I have to read the above article Vox posted, hopefully it will answer some questions for me.

[Nickademus]

yeah...comments

ok with regards to jurisdiction:

the ICC can only preside over issues regarding nationals of a state that has ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC, or issues that occured on the territory of a state that has ratified the Rome Statute. Thus, currently, the United States, anything that occurs on US territory and anything Americans do (unless done on the territory of a state that has ratified the statute) are immune from the ICC.
The crimes the ICC has jurisdiction over are: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. what these crimes are defined as are quite extensive...for example, in the statute the listing of what constitutes a war crime is 2 1/2 pages long.
The court may (at earliest in 5 years from the time the ICC comes into force) preside over the crime of aggression if 7/8 of the state members agree to the definition. This seems unlikely to occur since even the UN and the ICJ can't agree upon a definition of aggression. Interesting, any of the states that disagree with an amended definition of aggression have the right to withdraw from the ICC's jurisdiction.

While the court will have an independent prosecutor, meaning cases don't have to be specifically brought by a state or individual, the ICC will only be able to try cases where that state is unable or unwilling to have a fair trial. the ICC is not an appeal court, however. If the Supreme Court of Canada finds someone innocent of war crimes and the ICC thinks they are guilty, the ICC can not try the case. Soveriegnty continues to reign supreme. if the trial is a sham, however, the court can indeed hold a trial.

phew...that was a breathful....i hope that helps somewhat. if you have any more questions feel free to ask.....i know a lot about the ICC.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from vox on 1:19 am on April 12, 2002
Hopefully, the court will be a judicial body rather than an overtly political body. With that said, however, I think that it's a very good step in the right direction.

vox



vox,

theoretically.....the ICC is suppossed to be independent from the UN and there are supposed protections in place that won't allow the court to become overly political....there are no vetos (suck on that).

there are, however, problems because the Rome statute is suppossed to be in accordance with the Charter of the UN. The way current discussions on the definition of aggression are going as well, it appears as though the ICC won't be able to try a crime of aggression (when it comes into existence in the statute) unless the UN Security Council has declared that something was in fact an act of aggression.

this question was recently raised to me in a presentation in my international use of force class.....should any declaration of the Security Council that an act is aggression be binding on the ICC (meaning should the ICC have to accept that declaration)? If yes, doesn't this contradict the principle of judicial independence of the ICC? If no, what occurs when a declaration of the ICC and the Security Council come into direct conflict? The value of the ICC would be undermined if the Security COuncil's opinion is accepted but the UN Charter states that in the event of conflict with subsequent treaties, the UN is superior.

bit of a conundrom that i've been dealing with lately......

[Valkyrie]

Nickademus, thanks for the information. I remember awhile back you posted a link to the ICC website, do you still have that? Thanks alot.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from Paris on 3:59 am on April 14, 2002
Nickademus, thanks for the information. I remember awhile back you posted a link to the ICC website, do you still have that? Thanks alot.

there are a couple of good sites www.iccnow.org there is also a link on the www.warchild.ca website....go the take the stand link

just do a google search and lots of great sites out there

[Nickademus]

oh yeah..this adds to the conundrom i was talking about earlier (like 3 posts above)

only 2 of the 5 permanent members of the Security COuncil have ratified the Rome Statute --- France and England.....

[Dhul Fiqar]

I think it's also quite interesting to look at the USA's arguments against ratifying this treaty, some scary comments in there.

I just saw a program about this thing on CNN, where they discussed among other things the "Hague invasion act", the provision passed by the US Congress that allows military action against Holland in the case of US servicemen being tried for warcrimes. Talk about ARROGANCE!!
The rules can't apply to THEM, I mean, if it's a court that the US Government can't order around and control completely, their soldiers could... well... you know... LOSE the case!

But anyway, I heard an official saying this: "There is no country in the world that is more vulnerable to an internation war-crimes tribunal than the United States". What does that tell you about their policies and human rights record in conflicts?

This whole thing defies belief, an is seemingly in the vain of the arguments against letting any outsiders even monitor what is going on in the Middle East. Both positions imply that there is something to hide.

--- G. Raven

[Valkyrie]

Yes, the United States should not be able to act with impunity. All member nations in the UN should be mandatorily invoved in it.

[Derar]

In my opinion , the ICC is useless , unless it can put ALL war criminals on trial .....

Israel's prime minister sharon is the biggest example , The israeli army so far had :

1. Attacked red cross/crescent memberes , attacked red cross/crescent ambulances and even clinics .
2. Bombed Religious places for both Muslims and Christians , as well as mosques and churches .
3. Killed children , women and un-armed civilians ...... and buried lots of them in mass graves !
4. Had no respect for POW .they made concetration camps for prisoners , where they were tortured or killed .
5. Didnt respect any peace treaty so far , and violated all UN. rules , and didnt even care about the world's opinion .
6. Violated human rights in every possible way ....

And still he hasnt been declared as a war criminal , and ofcourse thats apart from the ( sabra and shatila ) massacre , where thousands of women and children were massacred by the israeli soldiers in lebanon in 1982..... and the families of the victims r still trying their best to make sharon appeal in a war crimes court .....

But i guess in the world we r living in now , it is almost impossible ...... in a world were an ugly government called America is ruling it !

[Nickademus]

the ICC will not be completely useless. If punishes some people it is better than punishing no one. And Isreal is still liable under the UN Charter and International Humanitarian law (which is in essence the laws of war). Isreal may very well be held responsible (although that's very unlikely when you consider the US is on the Security Council with veto power).

the ICC can't have jurisdiction over ever country....not yet....it needs to become customary international law, which means it needs to become generally accepted by all states and has to be seen as imposible to derogate from.

international law is built upon consent, everything (except customary international law) is consentual (and most contries have to consent to something in order for it to become customary itnernational law). to impose something on states is to reak havoc with the system which will then cause greater chaos. i never said the ICC will be perfect, far from it actually. but it is a step in the right direction.

and just fyi Isreal has signed the Rome statute, they just have not ratified it, just like the US.

[Nickademus]

i'm going to attempt one last time to bring this topic about because i think it is very important. i really hope some people feel strongly enough about human rights to respond

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Derar on 7:59 am on April 14, 2002
In my opinion , the ICC is useless , unless it can put ALL war criminals on trial .....

Israel's prime minister sharon is the biggest example , The israeli army so far had :

1. Attacked red cross/crescent memberes , attacked red cross/crescent ambulances and even clinics .
2. Bombed Religious places for both Muslims and Christians , as well as mosques and churches .
3. Killed children , women and un-armed civilians ...... and buried lots of them in mass graves !
4. Had no respect for POW .they made concetration camps for prisoners , where they were tortured or killed .
5. Didnt respect any peace treaty so far , and violated all UN. rules , and didnt even care about the world's opinion .
6. Violated human rights in every possible way ....

And still he hasnt been declared as a war criminal , and ofcourse thats apart from the ( sabra and shatila ) massacre , where thousands of women and children were massacred by the israeli soldiers in lebanon in 1982..... and the families of the victims r still trying their best to make sharon appeal in a war crimes court .....

But i guess in the world we r living in now , it is almost impossible ...... in a world were an ugly government called America is ruling it !
I really do wish that Sharon would be brought to justice, but just because he won't be, that doesn't mean that Milosevic types shouldn't be, either. I would rather stop half of the world's war criminals that stop all of them. Also, it's the International Criminal Court, and I think that if Sharon keeps doing what he's doing some European nations will begin to speak up.