Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (118233)	10/31/2003 8:39:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Since "aggression" has not been defined, and nothing has been adopted (and there is no move to do so) on this issue, the ICC has no jurisdiction. And they cannot define it themselves, or extend their jurisdiction to cover it Sez who they can't? by Article 9 Article 9: Elements of Crimes 1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. They shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties. 2. Amendments to the Elements of Crimes may be proposed by: (a) Any State Party; (b) The judges acting by an absolute majority; (c) The Prosecutor. Such amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties. 3. The Elements of Crimes and amendments thereto shall be consistent with this Statute. All you need is a two-thirds vote, and presto, you have a provision. All you need is the political will, to be supplied by a prosecution that the majority wish to undertake. RE: "the crime of occupation": I cannot find any reference to this crime, in the Rome Statute. Can you? Article 8.2.viii, in the listing of defined war crimes: (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; By this definition, building a garrison in disputed territory can be defined as a war crime, if anyone wishes to define it so. If you check out Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15, you will see that jurisdiction is extremely broad. There is automatic jurisdiction if either the alleged criminal is a member of a signatory State; or the crime happened on the territory of a signatory State. But that's not all. Any signatory state can recommend a prosecution to the prosecutor by Article 14; or the UNSC can do so by a Chapter VII resolution in Article 13 (you are completely wrong to say there is no connection between the UN and the ICC; the links strengthening UN authority and tying the ICC to it as a prosecuturial arm of the UNSC are all through the ruling); and if none of these cases still apply, the prosecutor may investigate proprio motu by Article 15. That's damn near universal jurisdiction. True, the prosecutor needs to determine that the alleged crime has not been adequately prosecuted by the country in question, but who gets to define the crime? and determine if it has been adequately prosecuted? The ICC prosecutor. The Rome Ruling preventgenocide.org