The US and the international court

[ZeeGerman]

Why is it so difficult for the US to participate in this court?

NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/international/europe/11NATI.html)

An American resolution that would extend United States citizens' immunity from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court has rekindled some of the trans-Atlantic hostility that led to the diplomatic debacle over the Iraq war.

Especially since the rules leave each country the opportunity to investigate an issue brought up against one of its citizens itself, before the IC in Den Haag would step in action?
From
here (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew54.php)
Cases can be referred to the Court by: (1) the United Nations Security Council, or (2) individual member countries or the Court’s prosecutor. Referrals under the second track are subject to the principle of “complementarity,” wherein the Court would be a last resort only when a state cannot or will not prosecute one of its nationals. The Court’s prosecutor must notify a state with a prospective interest in a case of the prosecutor’s intent to commence an investigation. If that state notifies the Court within one month that it is investigating the matter, the prosecutor must defer, unless the Pre-Trial Chamber decides the investigation is a sham. The decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber can be reviewed by interlocutory appeal to the Appeals Chamber. And, the Statute provides the Security Council with a collective veto over the Court, by allowing the Council to postpone an investigation or a case for up to twelve months, with provision for renewing that time period.

Zee

[Jon_in_london]

Dont you know that international law only applies to the enemies of the US? :rolleyes:

[Agammamon]

Because the US considers itself as a big target and the ICC is a good place to drag us through the mud. Basically the Bush administration feels that the US military is enlightened enough that they will not commit war crimes (and if they do that the US justice system will be able to handle the prosecution) but allowing our people to be tried in the ICC gives other countries (that may not like us) a powerful tool to harass.

[Supercharts]

The International Court? International?
Sort of implies a fair and impartial review of military actions.
What did the "International" court do concurrent with Kosovo or Afganistan or Iraq? How long can they drag out Milosovik's trial? :mad:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Supercharts
How long can they drag out Milosovik's trial? :mad:

How long did the US courts drag out the trial of a sportsman who killed his wife? Wouldnt you say that Milosovich's trial is a tad more important and warrants a more thorough investigation etc..?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Because the US considers itself as a big target and the ICC is a good place to drag us through the mud. Basically the Bush administration feels that the US military is enlightened enough that they will not commit war crimes (and if they do that the US justice system will be able to handle the prosecution) but allowing our people to be tried in the ICC gives other countries (that may not like us) a powerful tool to harass.

Given the information of the second link I provided, I would say that an insubstantial charge would have next to no chance of being even accepted for investigation let alone an actual trial.
So if the charge is insubstantial, what's the harassment?

Suppose the IC sees a charge as worthy of investigation, the US courts can take over the investigation anytime. I would like to think that it is in the interest of any country to follow hints that accuse their soldiers of commiting war crimes.
What's the harassment here?

That leaves one option open for "harassment", namely the US refusing to investigate a given case on its own when the IC sees the charge as substantial.
Would you agree to such refusal?

What if the IC already had the suspect(s) in custody and tried him/them because the US wouldn't. Do the US pull a Jessica Lynch stunt or what?

Zee

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Why is it so difficult for the US to participate in this court?

...

Especially since the rules leave each country the opportunity to investigate an issue brought up against one of its citizens itself, before the IC in Den Haag would step in action?

...

Zee

It probably has a great deal to do with the way the USA has been flaunting US Law and International Law lately (secret surveillance, torturing prisoners, jailing people for months at a time without charges, applying Martial Law, sending people to countries that will hurt or kill these people, and so on).

[Agammamon]

"Given the information of the second link I provided, I would say that an insubstantial charge would have next to no chance of being even accepted for investigation let alone an actual trial."

Yes, I agree that an insubstantiated charge wouldn't hold up. The problem comes when you have different opinions on what is important or what constitutes real proof. And international doesn't imply fair and impartial.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


How long did the US courts drag out the trial of a sportsman who killed his wife? Wouldnt you say that Milosovich's trial is a tad more important and warrants a more thorough investigation etc..?

Investigation is done _before_ you bring someone to trial.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Agammamon
"Given the information of the second link I provided, I would say that an insubstantial charge would have next to no chance of being even accepted for investigation let alone an actual trial."

Yes, I agree that an insubstantiated charge wouldn't hold up. The problem comes when you have different opinions on what is important or what constitutes real proof. And international doesn't imply fair and impartial.

So you reject the idea of the IC completely?
Who should deal with war criminals then?

Zee

[Earthborn]

USA for ICC (http://www.usaforicc.org/index.html)

'Unsigning' the ICC treaty (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_unsigning.html)

Myths and Realities (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths.html)

The ICC: Made in America (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_america-icc.html)

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


So you reject the idea of the IC completely?
Who should deal with war criminals then?

Zee

Not really, I think its a good idea in principle, I just think it has a few problems in implementation. I've yet to see a truly impartial nation working solely for justice through an international organization. All of them (the US included) have used platforms like the UN to push for their own agendas and I don't see the ICC as being significantly different. As for dealing with war criminals, the current system of the victors trying them works somewhat (and in general its the victors that determine what a war crime is anyway).

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Agammamon


As for dealing with war criminals, the current system of the victors trying them works somewhat (and in general its the victors that determine what a war crime is anyway).

I have some problems with that...

What if the atrocities were comitted by a member of the victor's army? What if the victory was reached by massive atrocities?

I doubt that any investigation in crimes of war commited by German soldiers would have been carried out if the Germans had won WWII.

Some conflicts drag on for years, do you want to wait until a victor is determined?

Zee

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


How long did the US courts drag out the trial of a sportsman who killed his wife? Wouldnt you say that Milosovich's trial is a tad more important and warrants a more thorough investigation etc..?

Well, not as important as OJ Simpson's, but...

:p

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


I have some problems with that...

What if the atrocities were comitted by a member of the victor's army? What if the victory was reached by massive atrocities?

I doubt that any investigation in crimes of war commited by German soldiers would have been carried out if the Germans had won WWII.

Some conflicts drag on for years, do you want to wait until a victor is determined?

Zee

Hello Zee,

Unfortunetly War Crimes are always the view of the victors.
There were Americans, Brits, and Soviets that could have easily been indicted for war crimes against civilians in the Second World War (i.e. 8th Air Force, Bomber Command, Katyn, etc.)
A better case could be made against them than people like Albert Speer and Von Manstein.

I don't know, and I don't have the answers.

Would this current one proposed indict third world figures or would they not for fear of being "neo-colonalist"?