Should the UN have a role in Clerical sex abuse investigations ?

It's starting to look like something akin to the Nuremburg trials are going to be needed tbh.

After a bit of thinking about this and looking around, there technically might be scope for action through the International Court of Justice. The chances of it happening would be zero but it's an interesting thought experiment though.

While the Vatican only has observer status at the UN, it would seem that observer states can participate in ICJ cases. Switzerland was an UN observer state until 2002 and was party to a case at the ICJ in 1958, so it seems like it could be possible since I presume observer states must ratify the UN Charter which gives the ICJ jurisdiction. The Court could rule on violations of treaties to which the Vatican is a signitory, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

However, since in contentious cases one state must take a case againt another, it would require one state to lodge a case against the Vatican at the ICJ. However, since the issue does not really deal with relations or treaties between states (something the ICJ was establised to do) I'm not sure if such a case would be possible. It would also depend on whether the Vatican had signed the optional clause in the ICJ statute giving the Court compulsory jurisdiction to rule on cases involving the Vatican without it's consent.

Another, possible more realistic option, would be to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the Vaticans adherence to the treaties named above. For this, the Court does not require permission, regardless of the status of compulsory jurisdiction, to hear a case and to issue a legal opinion on it. However, for such a case to be referred to the Court would require instruction from a relevant UN body, such as the Securlty Council or the General Assembly, which would be unlikey to happen. Also, while the decisions and recommendations from an Advisory Opinion hold significant legal weight, they are not binding and not enforcable.

Anyway, all this is completely outlandish but fun to contemplate nontheless and I could have it completely wrong.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Would be impossible for them to do so; given their stance on women priests, it'd be impossible for them to adhere to the rights of the Convention. Another reason why they can't join the Court of Human RIghts.

I think this might also be a bit of an issue:

ARTICLE 12
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

They also haven't signed up to the UN Convention on Civil and Polical Rights which states that:

Article 23
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

jennyjest wrote: »

Take the tyrants, despots and dictators out of the UN and the place would be half empty !

Could send them to join the clergy. I hear they're running short of people.

anymore wrote: »

the world wide Catholic sex abuse phenomenon.

Sleepy wrote: »

the Nuremburg trials

Drama, ftw !

Now, I'm no fan of the catholic church, but a sense of perspective, please.

We are still talking about individual perpetrators here, not organised mass peadophelia.

As for the world wide cover-up, I think society as a whole is very much on the case there now, no need to involve another useless talking shop to water down the issue with UN-legal-speak and indicisive non-action.

(anyone remeber the "tough" stance of the UN on the Rwandan genocide? )

peasant wrote: »

Drama, ftw !

Now, I'm no fan of the catholic church, but a sense of perspective, please.

We are still talking about individual perpetrators here, not organised mass peadophelia.

As for the world wide cover-up, I think society as a whole is very much on the case there now, no need to involve another useless talking shop to water down the issue with UN-legal-speak and indicisive non-action.

(anyone remeber the "tough" stance of the UN on the Rwandan genocide? )

Great point, exactly what was needed to be said to put this thread into perspective. The UN will not be taking a hard line towards the Church, I be surprised actually if they said anything about it. They do not want to offend those that they work with.

Look, the UN are not going to do anything about this. It's an interesting thought but it just ain't going to happen. It will be up to states to deal with this through their own justice systems. Hopefully they actually do it.

jennyjest wrote: »

How may countries does the abuse have to be discovered in before we can call it world wide ? The cover up was organised by the institution even if the abuse was by individuals.

There is absolutely no question that the clerical child abuse is going on all over the world, nor is there any question over it being covered up by the church.

But ...

Child abuse is an issue in every society (inside and outside the church) and not just the sole domain of the catholic church.
Covering up child abuse (be that in the family, state organisations or the church) also is a world wide occurence.

It is a matter for society, humanity as a whole, to change that.

Singling out the catholic church as the bad guys and charging the UN with the clearup is a far too easy way out.

Everybody has to start with looking at themselves, their environement, their neighbours, their church and their country for change.

Child abuse is happening at everybodies front door (or very near to it) ...do something about it there, speak up, don't leave it to the UN

jennyjest wrote: »

Well starting at the institution that calls itself 'The One true Church' seems like a good place to start, dont you think ?

Yepp ...that's why I left them (after having been heavily involved as a youngster) once I got old enough to have my own thoughts and stand by them.

Everybody is free to do the same, no UN needed.

Overheal wrote: »

In a Territory thats 0.17 square miles large, and is purportedly made up almost entirely of abstinent priests, why is the age of consent 12?

Holy sh1t. That's insane.

Maybe Irish priest who went on holidays there thought the same applied in Ireland.