re the ICC:
The Prosecutor is accountable to the Assembly of States Parties. They elect him and can remove him. The main U.S. complaint, is that we won't control this Assembly, and don't have veto power over its decisions.
Yes, many of the governments are "unfree", treating their minorities as badly as, say, Israel treats the Palestinians. I proposed a solution to this, in my post.
<new, ill-defined & unprecedented body of law>
No, the crimes are very narrowly and clearly defined (see the links provided, for the complete definition). Most of those crimes are defined exactly as they already are in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The requirements for proving guilt are, in some cases, more narrowly defined than in previous treaties (see my Problem #7, on the requirements for civilian leaders, and the multiple new requirements for proving Crimes Against Humanity)
"Crimes of Aggression" is not a part of the treaty, and can't be unless the treaty is amended. Even then, signatories can opt out of any new provisions.
<If only one of the litigants is a signatory, that's good enough too, the prosecutor is good to go>
No, the jurisdiction is not universal: "The ICC will have jurisdiction over crimes committed by the nationals of governments that ratify the treaty, or in the territories of governments that ratify."
<all that's needed is a go-ahead from the UN>
No, Nadine. The UN and the ICC are two totally separate organizations. The ICC is not under the control of the UN, doesn't need their "go-ahead" for anything. There was a failed attempt, during the negotiations, to give the Security Council a veto over ICC decisions. This was rejected, as it would have created impunity for the nationals of States with vetoes in the Security Council.
<That the actions of the ICC would be politically motivated should be obvious to anyone who has watched the UN in action, or the various claims of the Belgian courts to universal jurisdiction.>
Any nation whose soldiers or leaders are accused of war crimes, will say the accusations are politically motivated. This has always been, and will always be, a universal excuse. The Belgian courts and the UN have exactly zero to do with the ICC (no connection whatsoever). Yes, if the ICC is structured like the UN, some of the same problems may arise. Did you read my proposed solution?
When you say "politically motivated" this is code for "criticism of actions taken by the US and Israel that are condemned by almost every other nation on earth." Yes, they are war crimes, and they should be punished. Which is exactly why the US and Israel are the only two nations on earth actively opposing the ICC.
If we're going to win the war, we need to drop this arrogance, this insistence on impunity and double standards. The U.S. is steadily becoming isolated in the global community, in exactly the same way Israel has long been. The Israelization of America, and the Palestinization of the Islamic world. Blaming others for our isolation is not a solution. |
