the Rome Statute does not define, or include in the jurisdiction of the ICC, the crime of aggression
Since "Agression" is plainly listed as a war crime in the text of the Rome Ruling, I must say I find this assertion that it's not really there more than a little peculiar. When something is in the text of the law, prosecutors may choose to ignore it, but likewise may change their mind on the day it comes in handy for an otherwise sticky prosecution.
Once again, the U.S. finds itself alone, claiming things that the rest of the international community (all except Israel) disagrees with.
Since, to my mind, the entire purpose of the ICC is to harass and control the United States and Israel with politically-motivated prosecutions, it is hardly surprising that the United States and Israel should be the two countries seriously objecting to the treaty.
Come on, you tell me - France has charged into Africa with military force on 47 different occasions, never once asking for a UN resolution. Yet what do you think are the chances that anybody will ask the ICC to investigate French military behavior? Slim to none, wouldn't you agree? After all, who cares what the French do in the Ivory Coast? |
