International Criminal Court (ICC)

adnans

in July 1998, 148 countries met in rome to negotiate and vote on the subject. the ICC was given the go ahead with a vote of 120 to 7. the seven who voted against were USA, China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen.

the purpose of the ICC is to have a body that can prosecute serious crimes against humanity no matter who committed them and able to try people for gross violations of human rights, such as those committed during military conflicts.

do you think that such body will have too much power over national government of any country? why do you think USA opposes such a court when they are clearly out for justice in this year's war? and do we really need the ICC to look after our human rights?

by bringing the subject up, i am strongly in favour of such a court since it has proven rather successfull when dealing with war crimes commited in Bosnia and former Yugoslavia.

for those looking for more information, here's the links:

• Official ICC site
• Human Rights Watch : ICC
• Global Issues : ICC
• A list of ICC links

adnans

Victor

The US only believes in Constitutional justice, not moral justice. Whatever they can get away with. "Might is right" in their book.

Gargoyle

Courting Global Tyranny
by William F. Jasper

Everywhere throughout Rome these days the
signs of construction and restoration are
unmistakable: ancient monuments, temples,
churches, and basilicas are shrouded in
scaffolding and streets are blocked off to traffic
as workmen paint, chip, clean, and pave. The
furious renovation campaign is in preparation
for the new millennium, which has been
designated Europa 2000 by the European Union
and the Year of Jubilee by Pope John Paul II.

But the most significant construction in the
Eternal City this summer did not involve bricks
and mortar, and was largely invisible to the
millions of tourists who came to bask in the
Mediterranean sun and the grandeur that is
Rome. For five weeks during June and July,
hundreds of delegates from 160 nations met at
the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) complex to construct what
advocates called "the last global institution to
be created in this century": the International
Criminal Court (ICC).

Contrived Consensus

Late on July 17th, the last day of the conference,
following grueling hours of high-pressure arm
twisting, a global "consensus" was declared by
the ICC Plenary Session, and the announcement
was made that 120 nations had voted in favor of
approving the new "Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court." Only the United
States and six other nations — Israel, China,
Libya, Qatar, Iraq, and Yemen — voted against
the statute. Twenty-one nations abstained.

The new International Criminal Court will come
into existence in The Hague once 60 countries
have ratified the treaty. This is profoundly
significant to all peoples who dwell on this
planet, and especially to Americans, since the
ICC claims universal jurisdiction to try individuals
charged with genocide, war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and aggression, anywhere on earth
— even if the supposed defendants are citizens
of a nation that has refused to ratify the treaty
and the alleged crime has taken place inside the
boundaries of that nation. This unprecedented
claim of authority and the extension of treaty
obligation to nonparty states is a truly audacious
usurpation — even for the United Nations,
which has grown increasingly brazen with each
succeeding global summit. If allowed to stand —
and to thrive and grow, as its champions intend
— this Court will sound the death knell for national
sovereignty, and for the freedoms associated with
limited, constitutional government.

Of course, the issue of the Court's credibility
absent U.S. participation, and the practical matter
of enforcing ICC judgments against an unwilling
U.S. (or against just about anyone else, for that
matter, without U.S. support), has not been lost
on all. "You cannot have a court of universal
jurisdiction without the world's major military
power on board," Netherlands delegate Gam
Strijards was quoted as saying by the New York
Times. "I won't say we gave birth to a monster,
but the baby has some defects." The myopic
Dutchman may see a defective baby, but any
sober, rational evaluation of the ICC will confirm
that the creature born in Rome is indeed a monster.
Which is hardly surprising, inasmuch as it would
be illogical to expect anything but a monstrous
product to be produced by the monstrous process
that was the Rome ICC conference.

Carefully Managed Forum

There is an old adage that those with weak
stomachs should not watch sausage or
legislation being made. That advice was
especially true for the global confabulation
which produced the ICC Statute. The Rome
gathering was the culmination of a multi-year
program of PrepComs (Preparatory Committee
meetings) that had been carefully orchestrated
to arrive at the contrived global "consensus"
that is now being celebrated by the devotees
of "world order." Far from the careful, deliberative
process concerning narrow, tightly defined issues
that typify most treaty negotiations between
nations, the ICC summit was an exercise in
managed chaos aimed at establishing an
international criminal code that will be binding
upon the entire planet. Yet all the redundant,
pious platitudes about reverence for "the rule
of law" could not hide the fact that this was
truly a lawless conference in pursuit of lawless
objectives.

Terra Viva, the official NGO (non-governmental
organization) newspaper, noted in its first issue
for the conference that "with more than 1,700
passages of the draft statute in brackets —
indicating disagreement among governments
over wording — almost every issue central to
the ICC's existence is still open for discussion."

"Even by past standards of international treaties,"
the radical journal commented, "the draft statute
… is vague and runs to a hefty 166 pages in
English." What this meant for conference
delegates was an impossible task of trying to
keep up with a dizzying deluge of endless text
revisions, high-powered lobbying by NGO
militants, and devious schedule manipulation
by Conference Chairman Philippe Kirsch.

The conference organizers were taking no
chances and had so blatantly stacked the deck
in favor of the ICC that its creation was never
seriously in doubt, despite the furious diplomatic
theatrics and the frequent handwringing over a
multitude of obstacles that supposedly
threatened to scuttle the statute.

To begin with, by holding the conference in
Rome, the ICC advocates were guaranteed not
only the advantage of all the assistance which
the left-wing Italian government would give,
but the aid as well of a huge cadre of Italian
professors and activists who have been among
the most fervent apostles for establishing a
global judiciary. Holding the conference at the
FAO further guaranteed that the huge UN
bureaucracy would be strategically positioned
to assist in all phases of the event — far more
than if the summit had been held at a neutral
venue.

To tilt the process even further, the conference
was loaded up with delegates from UN agencies
such as the International Law Commission,
UNESCO, UNICEF, the UN Commission for
Human Rights, the UN Commission on Crime,
the UN Office for Drug Control, and
intergovernmental organizations like the Council
of Europe, the European Community, the
International Committee of the Red Cross,
Interpol, the Organization of African Unity,
and the Organization of American States.

But by far the most dramatic development in
Rome was the emergence of the NGOs as
rent-a-mob power brokers in the increasingly
sordid business reverently referred to at these
gatherings as "evolving norms of international
law." Paul Taylor, diplomatic editor for Reuters,
sinned by understatement when he reported that
"the enormous influence of NGOs inside the
conference was one of the key features of the
five-week Rome meeting." The incestuous
relationship between the UN/ICC officials and
the NGO radicals — and the flagrant connivance
by the two forces to push the entire conference
proceedings ever leftward — made a complete
mockery of their sanctimonious paeans to justice,
fairness, transparency, and the "rule of law."

Conference officials attempted to establish a
moral imperative at the outset which posited
that the ICC was essential not only to end the
gravest of crimes but to restore the credibility
of the UN and global institutions. "If we succeed,"
World Federalist William R. Pace told the ICC
conference "it means the establishment of a court
which will prevent the slaughter, rape, and murder
of millions of people during the next century."

By keeping the conference rolling at a relentless
pace and swarming the conferees with non-stop
lobbying by militant NGO delegates, the organizers
achieved a pressure cooker effect which wore
down any resistance to the pre-ordained outcome.
The Rome process provides an alarming look into
the dreadful prospect of "the rule of law" under an
unrestrained UN regime.

Gargoyle

Vague and Dangerous

John R. Bolton, senior vice president of the
American Enterprise Institute, in his July 23, 1998
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, noted that even for genocide, the oldest
among the crimes specified in the Statute of Rome,
"there is hardly complete clarity in what it means."
The ICC Statute contains the same definitions for
genocide that are found in the Genocide
Convention. Mr. Bolton observed: "When the
Senate approved the Genocide Convention on
February 19, 1986, it attached two reservations,
five understandings, and one declaration. One
reservation, for example, requires the specific
consent of the United States before any dispute
involving the U.S. can be submitted to the
International Court of Justice. One of the
understandings limits the definition of 'mental
harm' in the Convention to 'permanent impairment
of the mental faculties through drugs, torture,
or similar techniques.' Another understanding
provides that the Convention should not be
understood to function automatically as an
extradition treaty."

Even these legal protections are of dubious
value in an organization replete with thugs, tyrants,
kleptocrats, and mass murderers. In fact, by giving
a sense of false security they served to dignify and
make palatable a toxic substance which would
otherwise have been rejected for the dangerous
sham that it is. However, under the ICC regime
even these dubious protections are not available.
Article 120 of the treaty states emphatically,
"No reservations may be made to this Statute."
In order to ratify the Statute, the Senate would
have to repudiate the positions it laboriously
worked out to cover the obvious defects in the
Genocide Convention — and then trust that
parties who mean us harm will not make use of
their ample opportunities to charge American
citizens with "genocide."

"War crimes" and "crimes against humanity"
are even more vaguely defined, and thus, fraught
with even more danger. Under crimes against
humanity, for instance, we have the crime of
"persecution," which is defined as "the intentional
and severe deprivation of fundamental rights
contrary to international law by reason of the
identity of the group or collectivity." Would an
activist ICC judge have difficulty discovering in
that definition the authority to strike down any
laws — or even the policies of private religious
bodies for that matter — that "deprive" homosexuals
of their "fundamental rights"? Not likely. How about
"other inhumane acts," such as "causing great
suffering or serious injury to body or to mental
or physical health"?

Similarly, under "war crimes," there are definitions
sufficiently broad to drive a UN Panzer division
through. Consider the hooks that could be devised
with these crimes:

• "Willfully causing great suffering, or serious
injury to body or health."

• "Killing or wounding treacherously individuals
belonging to the hostile nation or army."

• "Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

• "Intentionally launching an attack in the
knowledge that such an attack will cause
incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and
severe damage to the natural environment...."

Can we really consider allowing a panel of UN
judges to decide whether a U.S. military
bombardment or other operation constitutes a
crime of causing "great suffering" or "serious
injury to health"? Can we truly contemplate
allowing ICC "jurists" to determine if a Marine
sniper or an Army patrol carrying out an ambush
of an enemy force is guilty of "killing
treacherously"? Is there a possibility that
"outrages upon personal dignity" could be
interpreted by an anti-American judiciary to
our detriment? What shall constitute "knowledge"
that an attack will cause "incidental loss of life or
injury"? And what does "civilian objects" mean?
If your mortar round overshoots and blows up a
farmer's haystack are you guilty of a war crime?
Probably so, if you're an American.

Still more disturbing is the ICC's claim to have
jurisdiction over "internal conflicts" under the
"war crimes" rubric concerning "armed conflicts
that take place in the territory of a State when
there is protracted armed conflict between
governmental authorities and organized armed
groups or between such groups." Imagine how
that might be applied to the ongoing gang
warfare in many of our cities, or a siege of rioting
such as we experienced in Los Angeles and other
cities a few short years ago.

Are these paranoid and frivolous objections, as
the ICC's fervent backers claim? How can anyone
think so? We have numerous decisions by our
own activist federal judges, who claim to find a
"constitutional" right to abortion, for example,
lurking in the "penumbras formed by emanations
from the Bill of Rights." Can anyone familiar with
the record of the UN think that judges from Russia,
China, Cuba, Iran — or even some of our
supposed "allies" for that matter — would feel
any more constrained against playing God than
our own robed subversives?

Hotbed of Hatred

As one who was in Rome "at the creation," this
reporter can attest firsthand to the fact that the
longstanding hatred toward the United States
by the vast majority of the pathetic regimes that
comprise the UN menagerie is still alive and well.
Day after day during the ICC conference the U.S.
was subjected to tirades and condemnations —
by official delegates as well as by NGOs — for past
and present sins. In fact, from the non-stop anti-U.S.
invective one might imagine that America is the
principal, if not the sole, source of evil in the world.
The billions of dollars that we have ladled out
over the past half century to these countries and
the UN itself have purchased us not an iota of
good will.

There were calls for prosecuting Presidents
Bush and Clinton for war crimes. The NGO
"Society for Threatened Peoples" charged the
U.S. with these past "war crimes": "Dropped 15
million tonnes of bombs in the Vietnam War,
conducted air raids on Cambodia, supported
Indonesia's annexation of East Timor, backed
right-wing death squads in Guatemala in the
early eighties."

Months before the Rome summit had even
begun, the UN Commission on Human Rights
had targeted the U.S. with a purely political
attack alleging that this country unfairly applies
the death penalty. The Commission report
charged that the U.S. was in violation of the
1966 UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and called on the U.S. to suspend all further
executions until U.S. state and federal laws were
brought into compliance with "international
standards and law."

Of course, we don't mean to imply that all of the
U.S. bashing was emanating from Third World
countries, communist satrapies, or UN agencies.
Canada, Norway, Britain, Germany, Italy, and
other European "allies" vied for top anti-U.S.
honors, too. On the final day of the conference,
when the very minimal objections of the U.S. to
the ICC were soundly defeated, the assembled
delegations erupted in a tumultuous and defiant
display of anti-American jubilation — which was
joined by much of the press corps — including
"American" reporters.

Naturally, the U.S. NGOs topped all others in
attacking their homeland. As Reuters reported,
"the American NGOs were the scourge of the
United States" at the conference. On July 8th, a
Terra Viva headline, "Police Brutality Deeply
Rooted in U.S.," announced the release of a
Human Rights Watch report charging a national
"epidemic" of police brutality. The 440-page report,
entitled Shielded From Justice: Police Brutality
and Accountability in the United States, was
time-released for maximum effect on the conference.
Human Rights Watch spokesman Richard
Dicker seemed never to be satisfied if not hurling
vitriol at the U.S. But that has not hindered him or
his group from receiving hundreds of thousands
of dollars in the past year from the Ford Foundation.

Gargoyle

Open-Ended Aggression

It would be utterly foolish to imagine that this
army of international rabble rousers masquerading
as "human rights" champions will not seek to use
the new ICC Statute principally as a weapon against
America. But if the three "core crimes" offer
opportunities for mischief because of fuzzy
definition, what about the crime of "aggression"?
The ICC Statute doesn't even offer a definition of
this nebulous crime, but simply says that the world
should blindly approve the Statute and trust in the
benignant global servants to come up with a
universally acceptable definition. Here, exactly, is
what the treaty says, in Article 5, Section 2: "The
Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of
aggression once a provision is adopted in
accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the
crime and setting out the conditions under which
the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to
this crime." Is that audacious enough for you?

It was audacious enough to surprise even many
of the most rabid ICC advocates who, as a tactical
maneuver, had written off the inclusion of
aggression among the core crimes as simply
unrealistic. Like many others, Hans Corell, UN
Undersecretary-General for Legal Affairs, had
argued that attempting to include aggression
might jeopardize the whole package because the
"crime of aggression is considerably more complex,
since it is difficult to have a clear definition of what
aggression is."

When Professor Benjamin Ferencz insisted that
"aggression is a supreme international crime" and
"supreme crime needs a Supreme Court," even
Terra Viva argued that perhaps now was not the
time to pursue that agenda. Noted the NGO journal:
"Many feel that aggression is a nebulous legal
concept. For example, some point out that the
International Law Commission spent twenty years
unsuccessfully trying to define it. In addition, they
say, aggression is performed by governments, not
individuals." Nevertheless, it is now part of the
Statute. Obviously, the forces of Dr. Ferencz and
Italian Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini (another
radical advocate of including aggression) prevailed.

But to pile audacity on top of audacity and
usurpation on top of usurpation, perhaps the
crowning offense of the Rome summiteers is
the insistence by its authors that once the
magical number of 60 ratifying countries is
achieved, the ICC becomes universally binding
on the entire rest of the world. It is an astounding
and unprecedented arrogation of power. Never
before has the claim been made that states which
are not party to a treaty are nonetheless bound
by the same instrument. It is a violation of the
most fundamental principle of treaty law. As the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states,
"A treaty does not create either obligations or
rights for a third State without its consent."

Complementary Courts

This, naturally, did not matter a fig to the
vainglorious globocrats on the Tiber as they
set about crafting their own concept of "world
law." Besides, they warbled, concerns of a
runaway court are wildly chimerical. The
principle of "complementarity" would protect
against any such tendencies, they claimed.

That was the tune sung by European Commissioner
Emma Bonino when she came to Washington in
May to inoculate the Senate against fears of a
usurpatious ICC. The Court "will not … undermine
national sovereignty," she pledged, and "is not
designed to replace national courts but to
complement them." Why, we have her word for it.

Likewise, World Federalist Association president
John Anderson assured that there is nothing to
worry about. "The principle of complementarity
underlying the treaty assures that the court will hear
a case only when no national court is available or
willing to hear it," he insisted. "This policy would
limit prosecutions to suspects whose national legal
systems have broken down or are manifestly unjust."
Canadian Justice Louise Arbour, who serves as the
chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav Tribunal, is yet
another distinguished "expert" who offered
assurances and admonished the wary that "an
institution should not be constructed on the
assumption that it will be run by incompetent
people, acting in bad faith from improper purposes."
The message from all the votaries of global justice
was the same: trust us and our so-called "principle
of complementarity."

However, James Madison's principle of "prudent
jealousy" seems to be more apropos here. "The
freemen of America did not wait till usurped power
had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled
the question in precedents," Madison observed.
"They saw all the consequences in the principle,
and they avoided the consequences by denying
the principle." Thomas Jefferson provided an
important corollary in the form of this dictum:
"In questions of power let no more be heard of
confidence in man, but bind him down from
mischief by the chains of the constitution."

A search of the ICC Statute yields no valid reason
to prefer the advice of Bonino, Anderson, and
Arbour over that of Madison and Jefferson.
Indeed, Article 17 of the treaty asserts that a state
is considered to have primary jurisdiction over a
crime "unless the state is unwilling or unable
genuinely to carry out the investigation or
prosecution." And who will determine, under an
ICC regime, when and whether a state is "unwilling"
or "unable" and just how "genuine" its investigative
or prosecutorial efforts are? The ICC judges, naturally.

The Court also claims (in Article 70) jurisdiction over
"offences against its administration of justice," such
as: "giving false testimony" or "impeding" or
"intimidating" an official of the Court. Again, the
ICC itself will determine what constitutes "impeding"
or "intimidating." In the event of conviction for
these administrative crimes "the Court may impose a
term of imprisonment not exceeding five years,
or a fine in accordance with the Rules of Procedure
and Evidence, or both."

And where, pray tell, will the victims of ICC
"justice" serve their sentences? Let's consult
the Statute. Article 103 provides: "A sentence
of imprisonment shall be served in a state
designated by the Court from a list of States
which have indicated to the Court their willingness
to accept sentenced persons." A comforting
thought, no? Even more solace might be drawn
from Article 104, which states: "The Court may, at
any time, decide to transfer a sentenced person to
a prison of another state." In speaking of "states,"
the Statute is referring not to states of the U.S., of
course, but to nations. Which means that one might
be sentenced to prison in Cuba, Laos, Cambodia,
Zimbabwe, Russia, Rwanda, etc., or even several of
the above, in musical chair succession, so that your
family, friends, and legal counsel might have not
even the slightest idea of your location.

What's more, the Court has been given its own
prosecutor with virtually unlimited proprio motu
powers to investigate criminal cases on his own
initiation, or to undertake cases that have been
referred to his office by state parties, the Security
Council, or NGOs. These assertions of authority
and jurisdiction by the ICC are obviously in
fundamental opposition to American law. Under our
Constitution, only the states and federal government
have the authority to prosecute and try individuals
for crimes committed in the United States. Article III,
Section 1 provides that the judicial power of the U.S.
"shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such
inferior Courts as Congress may, from time to time,
ordain and establish." No judicial body or tribunal
not established under the authority of the
Constitution may exercise jurisdiction over citizens
of the United States for real or pretended crimes
committed in the United States. Nor may U.S.
officials turn over U.S. citizens to a foreign
government to be tried for alleged crimes in that
country without a valid extradition treaty with
that country.

Gargoyle

Right to Jury Trial

The ICC Statute is not an extradition treaty and
is so fundamentally irreconcilable to the U.S.
Constitution and Bill of Rights that American
participation in this misbegotten institution is
legally and morally impossible. One of the most
cherished rights of Americans that is threatened
by the ICC is the right to a jury trial by one's peers.
In the list of grievances brought against King George
by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence
we find:

• Combining with others to "subject us to
Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and
unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent
to their Acts of pretended Legislation."

• "[D]epriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of
trial by jury."

• "[T]ransporting us beyond the seas to be tried
for pretended offenses."

It seems we have come full circle and must fight
that battle again. Our Constitution (Article III,
Section 2) provides that the "trial of all crimes,
except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;
and such trial shall be held in the State where the
said crimes shall have been committed...." This
right was deemed so important that it was repeated
again in the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Justice Joseph Story, in his famous Commentaries
on the Constitution of the United States (1833),
observed: "The object of this clause is to secure the
party accused from being dragged to a trial in some
distant state, away from his friends, and witnesses,
and neighborhood; and thus subjected to the verdict
of mere strangers, who may feel no common sympathy,
or who may even cherish animosities, or prejudices
against him." Are we in less need of such protections
today, especially considering the claims of the ICC
and its adherents?

The Sixth Amendment also guarantees "a speedy
and public trial." Under federal law, a speedy trial
has been defined to mean that a defendant has the
right to be brought to trial within 70 days. There is
no such guarantee under the ICC statute. If we look
to the Yugoslav Tribunal as a model — as the
ICC proponents so frequently advise — we see the
Tribunal Prosecutor arguing that five years is a
reasonable time for a defendant to wait in prison for
a trial. Other ICC advocates cite the European
Court of Human Rights as a model for the ICC.
This international judicial body has ruled in various
cases that pretrial detention of three, four, or even
seven years, is acceptable.

Judicial Tyranny

All this dashes to pieces deceitful claims like John
Anderson's statement in his letter in USA Today
on July 20th averring that the "World Federalist
Association supports a strong international court
because we want to see the world as a whole
approach the high standards of justice that operate
in the United States." Quite clearly the ICC Statute
represents not an embrace by "the world as a whole"
of our "high standards of justice," but an attempt to
impose on the world — and the U.S. — a global
mechanism for judicial tyranny. And the ICC
architects have made it abundantly clear that they
have just begun. To the already conveniently elastic
"core crimes" they have already proposed adding
drug trafficking, arms trafficking, money laundering,
terrorism, environmental and economic crimes,
crimes against labor unions, embargoes, child
pornography, and a host of other offenses.

Dr. Charles Rice, professor of law at Notre Dame
University, has termed the ICC "a monster," both
in concept and reality, noting that it effectively
"repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and
the Declaration of Independence and cancels the
4th of July." "In our system," Professor Rice explains,
"law is supposed to be a rule of reason which, in a
sense, controls the state and compels the state to
operate under the law." But the superjurisdictional
ICC, he points out, has no legitimate basis for its
claimed authority, no protections against abuses,
no accountability, and virtually no limits to its
jurisdiction. "What are the limits on the ICC?" he
asks, and then answers, "There are none. It's
insane!"

Insane, yes. And if the ICC architects have their
way, the entire planet will soon become a global
insane asylum — with the inmates in charge.

As Terra Viva plainly stated, "The issue now at
stake is global governance." Precisely. "Global
governance" is a hallowed term which poured forth
in superabundance in the speeches, conversations
and scribblings of the Rome conferees. Like "the
rule of law," it is globospeak code for "world
government," a term that the one-world cognoscenti
have learned to avoid "because it frightens people."
We have this directly on the authority of former
Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA), a former national
president of the United World Federalists and a
member of both the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TC). As a state
legislator back in 1949, Cranston authored a
resolution memorializing Congress to call a national
convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to
"expedite and insure the participation of the United
States in a world federal government." But in a 1976
interview with the Institute for World Order,
Cranston advised his one-world brethren to adopt
semantic camouflage, since "the more talk about
world government, the less chance of achieving it,
because it frightens people who would accept the
concept of world law."

And world law under a world government is exactly
what Benjamin Ferencz, the eminence grise of the
ICC conference, had in mind when he told conferees
that "outmoded traditions of State sovereignty must
not derail the forward movement," and "antiquated
notions of absolute sovereignty are absolutely
obsolete in the interconnected and interdependent
global world of the 21st century."

Just the Beginning

Many Americans who watched the Rome summit
with grave foreboding no doubt heaved an immense
sigh of relief on learning of the Clinton
Administration's vote against the ICC Statute and
the apparent resolute opposition voiced by Senator
Jesse Helms (R-NC) and others on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. Indeed, it was
comforting to hear the forceful statements of
Senators Rod Grams (R-MN) and John Ashcroft
(R-MO) at the July 22nd hearing of the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International
Operations. Senator Grams, who chaired the hearing,
stated: "This Court claims universal jurisdiction; in
other words, the right to prosecute United States
citizens even though the U.S. is not a party to the
treaty. It is important for Congress and the
American people to become apprised of the details
regarding this court sooner than later. While I am
relieved that the Administration voted against the
treaty in Rome, I am convinced that is not sufficient
to safeguard our nation's interests. The United
States must aggressively oppose this Court each step
of the way, because the treaty establishing the
International Criminal Court is not just bad, it is
dangerous."

And the danger has just begun. The world
government partisans who have brought the
ICC this far have invested too much and achieved
too much to let up now. They, of course, hope to
see the U.S. ratify and become fully entwined in the
Court as soon as possible, but they are willing to
take many years to achieve that objective, if
necessary. However, with the Establishment media
cameras dishing up fresh war crimes daily from
Kosovo, and more numbing atrocities from Africa,
the emotional hard-sell campaign to end "impunity"
can be expected to escalate and to create a
formidable momentum on very short notice.
President Clinton has been an avid proponent of
the ICC since his first days in the Oval Office. His
objections to the current ICC Statute — if real at all
(which is highly doubtful) — do not concern the
most fundamental constitutional, legal, and moral
issues involved in this serious issue. At best they
reflect his most current assessment of political
expediencies. And those too can change very
quickly.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem we face in this
fight is the lack of dependable Republican
opposition in the Senate. Even though some
senators are expressing their unalterable
opposition to the treaty as is, we can be sure from
past experience that the gradualist war is already
underway to convince them that the ICC is a fact, a
fait accompli, one which we will have to recognize
sooner or later, and that we might as well try to make
the best of it. Our past experience with the Genocide
Convention, GATT, NAFTA, WTO, and other
internationalist programs indicates it will require a
sustained and unyielding effort on the part of every
partisan of freedom to keep the ICC monster
caged. Ultimately, however, the only lasting
solution is to get out of the United Nations
completely and get the United Nations out of the
United States.

Gargoyle

That's why

bonkey

I have to admit to only having read through some of the stuff which Gargoyle quoted, but it seems a mixed bag.

We are quick to hold the US up to task for not signing on to the ICC, but there are valid concnerns expressed about the scope and powers.

For example, we would normally say that the US has signed the Geoncide Convention, when in fact, they signed an interpretation of the Convention, with several riders attached. Now, faced with the prospect of this Convention being enforced by an International Court, the US would lose the right to those "riders" if they signed on.

I'm not saying that this is a good ora bad thing - but there is always a problem when independant nations have a difference between their own legal system and that of an international body.

The UK, for example, have refused to accept EU Supreme Court rulings when they overthrow english law. The reason was something along the lines of "we have one of the oldest judicial systems in the world, which has been a model for countless nations. We expect the EU to back up our decisions, and did not sign in to Europe simply to allow them to change our way of life".

It is a valid concern, whether we agree with it or not. However, I think that the issue is not simply "the US didnt sign", but rather "not only did the US not sign, but they dont seem interested in any international court which is not based on US law". Whether or not this is true remains to be seen, but it is interesting that the US are now looking for an international court for anti-terrorism purposes only. The cynic in me says that this is an attempt to give US anti-terrorism powers a truly international scope, as opposed to allowing all nations come to an agreement on how it is to be done.

Regardless, I was vastly amused at the following :

When the
Senate approved the Genocide Convention on February 19, 1986, it attached two reservations, five understandings, and one declaration. One reservation, for example, requires the specific
consent of the United States before any dispute involving the U.S. can be submitted to the International Court of Justice

In other words, if the US is ever accused of genocide, it cannot be brought before the ICJ unless it agrees to it! Which means that if the US do commit genocide, they cant be tried for it unless they decide to be tried themselves.

Which, to me, isnt a reservation, understanding, or declaration. It is signing the treaty without signing it. It is saying that it should hold for anyone else, but only for the US when they decide it should. This is ridiculous.

Another piece which brought a smile to my lips was

This is profoundly significant to all peoples who dwell on this planet, and especially to Americans, since the ICC claims universal jurisdiction to try individuals charged with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression, anywhere on earth — even if the supposed defendants are citizens of a nation that has refused to ratify the treaty and the alleged crime has taken place inside the boundaries of that nation.

I didnt follow on to see if anyone objected to this as being too powerful or wideranging, or usurping national law, but I have only two words to say on the subject : Dmitriy Skylarov.

To be honest, I think the US' objections are purely and solely based on their unwillingness to be asnwerable to anyone. Now, to be honest, every nation has that right. However, if you refuse to be answerable, you also lose any moral high ground you may wish to have in order to tell other people what they should do!

When any major nation passes a controversial law, they always have a fallback - that the Supreme Court (or equivalent highest court in the land) is there to determine how the law works in practice. Their job is to interpret the wording into the "meaning" of the law, rather than the "letter" of the law. Therefore, all the complaints about the ambiguities, flaws, etc in the ICC proposals are rubbish - they are issues which need to be sorted, but which can only be sorted over time, by seeing the laws in action, and building up a "meaning" of the law.

The world needs the ICC. If the US doesnt sign on board, they can still be tried under it. If they complain, say two words to them : Dimitriy Skylarov..

jc

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey

To be honest, I think the US' objections are purely and solely based on their unwillingness to be asnwerable to anyone. Now, to be honest, every nation has that right. However, if you refuse to be answerable, you also lose any moral high ground you may wish to have in order to tell other people what they should do!


jc

Bonkey, I agree. I do NOT think the US should act as the global police force. The problem is, that pandora's box is already open. How do we get out of that role now that everyone expects us to jump into the middle of every hotspot?

dahamsta

Ya see, you almost had me there for a while Gargoyle. The first article was coming across as reasonabe, non-partisan and fair, and then:

"To tilt the process even further, the conference was loaded up with delegates from UN agencies such as the International Law Commission, UNESCO, UNICEF, the UN Commission for Human Rights, the UN Commission on Crime, the UN Office for Drug Control, and intergovernmental organizations like the Council of Europe, the European Community, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol, the Organization of African Unity, and the Organization of American States."

Yeah, the attendance of organisations with the best understanding of the issues at hand, the issues the ICC was being set up to handle, that's really "tilting the process". Gah!

Bonkey, I agree. I do NOT think the US should act as the global police force.

I think so too, but unlike some (that's not to say you, just "some"), I do think there should be a global police force, a global judiciary, etc. And I'm not just talking about war crimes and human rights abuses (although of course they should have priority), but true international law. Crime is becoming globalised just like business (often the two are inseparable), due in part to the Internet, and the law should reflect that. As it is, we already have some countries trying to "import" or even "export" criminals and crimes (Yahoo/France, Skylarov/US, etc), and that's never going to work.

The problem is, that pandora's box is already open. How do we get out of that role now that everyone expects us to jump into the middle of every hotspot?

Who do you mean by "us"? I would ordinarily jump to the conclusion that mention of the US in your last sentence means you meant the US, but I'm feeling particularly laid back today, so I won't.

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Bonkey, I agree. I do NOT think the US should act as the global police force. The problem is, that pandora's box is already open. How do we get out of that role now that everyone expects us to jump into the middle of every hotspot?

Thats not quite what I said, but close enough.

First off, I believe that the US government want the US to remain the world's police force. There are a number of compelling reasons for this, mostly financially oriented. Essentially, the US can help secure their global dominance by looking after the world (or being seen to look after the world).

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I cannot see how it can be to the US' benefit to remain as the "world's police", without having an ICC to lend them credence.....unless they want the freedom to act as they see fit without being answerable to anyone.

At the moment, as Typedef will gleefully point out, the US basically ignores the UN when it decides that it is contrary to its interests to do so. Now, I know there's been a lot of posting about the "blue-helmeted monkeys" and how they would be worthless without the US, but the UN is a hell of a lot more than its peacekeeping forces, so I'm not even arguing the point. If anyone believes that the US is correct in ignoring the UN because the UN is ineffectual - I would ask you why the UN is ineffectual. the answer is simple - it is ineffectual when its members choose not to follow its resolutions. The more powerful the member who does this, the less effective the UN is. So, the US ignoring the UN causes the UN to be ineffectal, in part.

Ultimately, no nation likes to be told what to do by outsiders, but it is hyprocacy in the extreme to try and enforce "multinational" laws while ignoring themselves when it suits you.

So, what do I believe the US should do? Simple :

1) They should have spearheaded the ICC movement, and made sure that it was a workable option. If the US is as powerful as we're led to believe, then this should have been possible. They should recognise that no international body can make laws which will be amenable to all, and that everyone will have to make concessions. Everyone, here, includes the US. Ultimately, the US was not willing to make the concessions necessary, and (presumably) the other delegates were not willing to concede to the American demands. Who was more correct? Who can tell - unless we see transcripts of the negotiations, we will never know.

2) The US should tell the world to sod off and be its own police force.

To be honest, I cant think of a single crisis since the end of WW2 where the world needed the US to be involved. Now, dont take this wrong - the US were the major force in the Gulf, the major force in Bosnia, and are the major force in Afghanistan. I accept all of this.

However, what if they had said no? What if they had said that they wanted no part of Iraq invading Kuwait? Do you believe the rest of the world combined would have been incapable of defeating Iraq in the gulf war? I dont think so. They may (or may not) have taken a bit longer , but they definitely could have done it. Unless, of course, you want to assert that after the US, Iraq is the most powerful nation on earth?

Ultimately, the US is the worlds police force because it chooses to be, not because it has no other options. Well - actually - I would go so far as to say that economically, it no longer has any other options, but thats a seperate issue.

If the US wishes to be respected in this role then it should stop serving US interests when in this role, and serve multinational interests instead. Sometimes these will mesh, sometimes not. But you should never sarifice international interests in favour of national ones.

The ICC was the perfect forum to start this, and it has passed by.

I have a simple philosophy - those who are there to protect the law must uphold the law. Not only that, but they must be the shining examples of how the law should be upheld. Right now, the US does not follow that philosophy that I can see.

jc

dahamsta

However, if I wasn't so laid back, and I was going to take your post at face(ish) value, ^that's^ what I would have said. Only not in quite so much detail. Or as well written.

adam