Only if you consider third-world justice systems as inferior by default. Given that such a judgement, in many cases, would fall back on first-world education systems -especially given the number of appointees who studied e.g. in the UK- hardly a sensible conclusion.
I’m not sure what you mean by “by default,” but I do believe that (1) the justice systems in most third-world countries are inferior to that of the U.S.; (2) the judges in these countries are significantly more corrupt that those of the U.S.; (3) in any event, the process by which third-world countries nominate judges is likely to be highly political (note that we have the same problem here in the US!); (4) regardless, there is a significant possibility that many judges chosen this way will have an anti-American bias; (5) having been educated in the West is no guarantee of impartiality.
Though I’m not sure, so you might consider this statement as a WAG, I don’t think there’s anything in the EU treaties which makes mandatory for a member to enter the treaty about the ICC (apart perhaps “peer pressure”?). The EU treaties and the ICC treaty are two completely different things.
Then, if a spanish tourist smoke a joint in front of a police officer in New-York and is arrested/ prosecuted, that would be an imposition of foreign values upon Spain. It’s exactly the same situation.
The spanish citizen in New-York falls under the juridiction of US courts enforcing US laws, and can be prosecuted for conduct which are deemed acceptable by his government. The US soldier leaving the US soil and entering another country which is a signatory of the treaty creating the ICC falls under the juridiction of the ICC and can be prosecuted for conducts which are deemed acceptable by his government. Absolutely no difference, once again.
But that’s just irrelevant. What is relevant here is the legal system defined by the ICC status. Whether or not some signatories have a piss-poor legal system has no bearing on the issue.
I would say : at the contrary. It’s even more important to have a international court recognized by said countries and with statutes providing a high standart of justice if we can’t rely on the member countries justice system to try war criminals.
Actually, france was not very happy with the treaty. During the negotiations, it pretty often teamed with the US to water it down. And was criticized by many countries for trying to block the process of the creation of the ICC. They (France, the US and other reluctant countries) got some concessions (for instance the part about signatories being allowed to refuse the juridiction of the court for a given number of years after its creation, in order to “evaluate” how it would work, but also to cover their asses in the short term) but not some others (for instance IIRC, not allowing soldiers taking part in peace-keeping operations to be prosecuted).
France eventually signed the treaty, though somewhat reluctantly. In a related issue , France also put also all sort of barriers to avoid its officers testifying during the trials before the international court for Yugoslavia.
Oh, yes, I caught your little remark about being a “team player” as if it’s a virtue to be held up high. On this Fourth of July, I invite you to read Washington’s Farewell Address to acquaint you with the thoughts of our Founding Fathers.
As for my Lord Jesus, He wasn’t always a team player, either, depending on which team for speaking for. 
The ICC is a tentacle of the UN (of which we should never should have entangled ourselves into). I choose my teams carefully and which whom I will be a player. Many who oppose the US in signing on to the ICC have already stated my reasons why I oppose this. Also as a libertarian, one’s own government is more than enough to deal with. To entangle ourselves with yet another growing monster is unconscionable.
I think it’s worth noting that you’re changing the subject here. My comment was addressed to the following:
You seem to agree that the ICC is a potential imposition but are arguing that that it is justifiable. IMHO, not all impositions are the same.
For example, when American soldiers are invading a foreign nation, it is sensible and reasonable that they should be subject to American law and not the law of the foreign nation. So, if Iraq prohibits the possession of American flags, I say “so what?”
On the other hand, it is more reasonable (but not always justified) for American civilians to be subject to the laws of foreign nations that they visit.
Now, you can quibble with my examples, but quite frankly, your (apparent) claim that situations involving (1) an invading army; and (2) a visiting tourist are “exactly the same” is ridiculous.
A legal system is only as good as the men and women who interpret its laws and rules. The fact that a huge number of third-world nations take part in the nomination and selection of ICC judges gives me pause. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t trust these countries to select the members of the international olympic committee.
**
It seems to me you are presenting a false dichotomy here. The other alternative is to use ad hoc tribunals set up by countries such as the US. And as I mentioned before, the statutes are only as good as the folks who interpret them.
You know, the least you could do is get your facts straight. Although I know this will make no difference to you, the ICC is NOT part or related to the UN. And by the way, the UN was a creation of the US and its allies after WWII.
OliverH, the notion that signing the ICC treaty would be unconstitutional has been pretty much shot down in page 1 and is not worth reviving.
>> the members are mostly developed countries and members of NATO
>> The link you posted gives the following list of ratifying countries. I’m sure there’s room to quibble over my breakdown, but it seems pretty clear to me that the majority are not developed countries.
Actually I expressed myself incorrectly and what I meant to say is that most developed countries and members of NATO were signatories of the ICC
>> And by the way, did you miss my earlier question – are you opposed to the concept of a UN Security Council?
What’s that got to do with anything?
Ah. Well, as Groucho Marx said, I’d never join a club that wants me as a member. 
Ah. If everyone else ‘good’ does it, it must be good for us, too.
I see this much in the same way as I see the Ottowa Convention on banning landmines. The end goal is desirable, and a lot of good countries have signed up to it, leaving the US in pretty lousy company. But I think that, in the cases of each treaty, the US has special considerations that must be taken into account: on Ottowa, I think there’s a case for using landmines to keep the DPRK commies hoardes on their side of the DMZ; on ICC, there’s a lot of countries that would love to knock a superpower down a peg.
That’s fine, as long as we can agree that ICC has nothing to do with your typical business traveller, since it has responsibilities in areas like genocide and aggression.
Uh, I think I’m missing the point here. I think the only point of bringing up SOFA is that Country A has jurisdiction over prosecuting Country A’s troops. I don’t think that there’s any way to infer from an agreement whether Country A has more strict, less strict, or just as strict laws as Country B.
I think silly charges are a waste of time, both for the country being falsely accused and for the ICC’s stature.
Although I am an ICC skeptic, I would hate to see it used as a stage for political extremists of whatever stripe to play out their dramas. The ICC has a serious mandate that shouldn’t be cheapened - thus I think that it is in the ICC’s interest (as well as the American interest) to make it more difficult to file charges.
If the ICC can go after horrible people like Pinocet, that’s fantastic. But if, say, anti-globalists from South America start using the ICC to file genocide charges against McDonalds for cutting down the rainforest, I think that’s terrible.
And although I am against the US joining the ICC as now conceived, I think the Service Members Protection Act – offered by Jesse Helms and passed by the Senate last year with 70-something votes – is an awful law. It basically forbids US cooperation with the ICC. Silly, just silly.
I would be a lot more confortable if there was some more effective check on the prosecutors and the judges and what they may choose to bring to trial. Hell, for all I know, Ramsey Clark could become an ICC Prosecutor.
After all, Mr. Clark has impressive credentials - US Attorney General in the Johnson Administration, long involvement with the legal community, plenty of experience in international criminal courts - he’s offered his services to Mr. Milosevic, after all. For all I know, he could be well liked by third world countries because of his political views, and conceivably could garner the majority vote needed for confirmation of an appointment. He’s also fucking nuts.
Before I think the US signing up to the ICC, I’d like to see stronger measures in treaty that would make it more difficult for the Ramsey Clarks of the world to get an official position on the ICC.
I’m not the one that needs to be corrected. You are.
Here is the rest of the text, courtsey of the UN itself.
Disasters can be grown out of good intentions and obviously Franklin D. Roosevelt did not heed the words of wisdom from our first president.
www.endgenocide.org/ceg-icc/factsheets/sovereigntymyths.pdf
But I guess there are people who believe any international engagements are a bad thing and the USA should behave as a rogue country doing whatever it pleases without regard for the rest of the world.
I think you’re weasling - what you said previously was not entirely clear, but here is part of it:
**
Earlier, you were decrying double standards. The UN Security Council is a glaring example of a double standard, treating certain nations, including the US, very differently from others. So I take it that you are opposed to the UN security council?
The source you provided refuting the UN association to the ICC is hardly an objective source.
Anyone reading the UN link I provided will plainly see that the ICC was conceived by, developed by and born of the UN. It’s genetic prints are all over it.
>> I think you’re weasling
You can think whatever you want. My point is that most democratic, developed, countries, NATO countries, have joined the ICC treaty while the most ugly dictatorships and rogue countries have not. It is telling that the USA finds its interests are aligned with those countries which represent the worst of the world.
>> The source you provided refuting the UN association to the ICC is hardly an objective source.
Well, I know attacking the source is Standard Procedure around here but is it a fact or not that the ICC “will be governed and funded only by those states that choose to ratify the ICC Statute”?
At any rate, I think we have pretty much exhausted the topic. Our positions are clear and we disagree, clearly. I do not think we can shed much more light on the topic.
It takes a hearty lack of intellect to think that establishing yet another committee is going to put a nail in the coffin of ‘genocide’ (especially given the pretty liberal definition given by the ICC)
Does anyone really think that Billy the Brazzaville Ninja is going to eschew chopping up some pygmy, just because countries he has never heard of established the ICC?
The current system of establishing a court to deal with a specific set of problems is fine. I see no compelling reason to establish permanent (soon to be bloated!) bureaucracy.
Of course, the same argument could be made regarding many domestic laws. Do you really think Joe Sixpack, when he is drunk and in a fit of rage about to beat his wife for the umpteenth time is going to reconsider because of the severe penalties imposed by statute? I don’t think so. Does that mean we should just not penalise wife-beating? I don’t think so. The object of penal laws is not only to deter the penalised behavior but it also has other objects, one of which is to express society’s repulsion to that antisocial behavior. That is how a society expresses that it considers a behavior inadmissible: it punishes it. Even if the punishment does not stop a single crime from happeneing society will still express its repulsion by imposing the punishment.
I do believe the ICC would diminish the incidence of crimes against humanity, but, even if it didn’t, it is still an expression of what civilised countries believe is inadmissible human behavior. And it is justice for the victims.
Civilised countries distinguish themselves by being ruled by laws, domestic and international. Ad hoc tribunals are not the rule of law but selective enforcement of rules made ex post facto for the particular case.
The USA was a creator of the UN and other international bodies. I remember when it was the USSR who continually despised the UN and acted like a rogue state because it did not get its way. Now the tables have turned and it is more and more the USA who defies the international community with the same arrogance the USSR used in its day. Arrogance is the best way to have the world laugh at you when you need their help. The USA should not be so arrogant as to believe it can go against the rest of the world. Treaties are made so that countries cooperate and gain. The USA cannot think it will get the cooperation of the rest of the world in exchange for nothing. It cannot be so stupidly arrogant.
That may be your point now, but that ain’t what you said earlier. And your new position is basically an argument ad populum: We should do it because all the cool kids are doing it.
And I note that you still haven’t answered my question:
are you opposed to the concept of a UN Security Council?
Or are you abandoning your earlier position about double-standards?