re ICC: extending jurisdiction:
Article 9 (Elements of Crimes), the section of the treaty you quoted, is not the section which defines the jurisdiction of the Court, or defines what the Court considers crimes. In fact, during the negotiations, the Elements of Crimes section was put in at the insistence of the U.S., over the objections of the Europeans. The Bush Administration has no objection to anything in Article 9.
Here (in full, with the relevant sections highlighted) is the part of the treaty which describes how amendments can be made:
icc-cpi.int
<Article 121: Amendments:
1. After the expiry of seven years from the entry into force of this Statute, any State Party may propose amendments thereto. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.
2. No sooner than three months from the date of notification, the Assembly of States Parties, at its next meeting, shall, by a majority of those present and voting, decide whether to take up the proposal. The Assembly may deal with the proposal directly or convene a Review Conference if the issue involved so warrants.
3. The adoption of an amendment at a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties or at a Review Conference on which consensus cannot be reached shall require a two-thirds majority of States Parties.
4. Except as provided in paragraph 5, an amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties one year after instruments of ratification or acceptance have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations by seven-eighths of them. (Jacob: it requires a majority to discuss it, 2/3 to "adopt" it, and 7/8 for it to "enter into force".)
5. Any amendment to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Statute shall enter into force for those States Parties which have accepted the amendment one year after the deposit of their instruments of ratification or acceptance. In respect of a State Party which has not accepted the amendment, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime covered by the amendment when committed by that State Party's nationals or on its territory. (Jacob: Articles 5-8 are where all the crimes and the Court's jurisdiction are defined. So, in addition to requiring a 7/8 vote, any nation can unilaterally opt out of any change in the court's jurisdiction.)
6. If an amendment has been accepted by seven-eighths of States Parties in accordance with paragraph 4, any State Party which has not accepted the amendment may withdraw from this Statute with immediate effect, notwithstanding article 127, paragraph 1, but subject to article 127, paragraph 2, by giving notice no later than one year after the entry into force of such amendment.
7. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall circulate to all States Parties any amendment adopted at a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties or at a Review Conference.
Jacob: You do have a point, about the internal administration of the Court being too heavily influenced by the wrong nations. The Court will only be enforced, if it has the support of the world's Powers. Those nations will also be funding the Court. I could see a situation, where the election of the Judges (this is done by majority voting among the State Parties), could be controlled by a collection of small undemocratic nations that can contribute no military forces, and no funding. The voting in the Assembly of States Parties should reflect actual power and population in the world. Uganda and Belize shouldn't have the same vote as the U.S. and China.
As I said in my original post,
Message 19454408
I see a number of problems with the ICC, and this is one of them. I actually agree with many of the criticisms of the Court, made by the Bush (and Clinton) Administrations. |
