Another point about the ICC from Grey’s link: the UN security council can bring a case to the ICC concerning individuals in countries that are not party to the ICC agreement. So, if their countries aren’t on the Security Council or have serious allies in the council, then they can face charges anyway.
I don’t know what the specifics would be, but I’m betting that the UK performs whatever perfunctory functions it can to avoid the “unwilling to prosecute” phrase and then throw the case out. A US equivalent would be like the judge dismissing the case during a pre-trial hearing. It shows a willingness to prosecute but avoids any embarrassing trials. Of course maybe, the law is well written enought to avoid this sort of wrangling. I’m not sure.
By the way, I found a bunch of articles on this subject, and the only one that refers to genocide is the one linked in the OP. The others say he was accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It looks like the report of a genocide claim might be a mistake.
Sorry, Grey, somehow I managed to skip right over your post.
Okay, so the ICC “assumes the case”… and? Presumably, Britain is not going to forcefully ship Blair off to Hague. So does Britain get kicked out of the EU for non-compliance with the ICC? Somehow, I doubt it. Does the ICC ask France, or someone to send in forces to drag Blair out? Does the ICC frown thoughtfully in Britain’s general direction until Britain gets the message that the ICC is very disappointed in it? Does the ICC have any means of enforcing its rulings other than the good Samaritanship of its member states?
Jeff
That’s pretty much the idea. As long as there is some kind of investigation at the national level that is not a complete sham, the ICC does not exercise jurisdiction.
True but we haven’t seen any details on what could be considered a sham. Anyone have anything or that or the enforcement procedure. I still can’t believe I can’t find one.