Well, that’s bloody news. The question is their good rational reason.
Understandable but the GA ain’t the int’l community in general.
I’m afraid I did not follow this so I can’t respond.
The Senate… The ICC…
Ah bother, I’m drunk.
London_Calling
I haven’t received the impression that Bush leans towards the isolationist thought.
The rest of the article is here. That makes a lot more sense to me than a permanent tribunal being set in place.
I’m not one to give myself gray hairs over people disagreeing with me. Or post baseless, immature materiel. If you want a real response, try asking in a civil manner. If you find polite actions to be beneath you, well… Good luck in life.
Bush’s foreign policy is iffy, but we can’t judge fully until we see effects from it. If President Bush’s policy is so terrible, we’ll see immediate effects from it, like President Carter.
The only effect I’ve seen, is causing European delegates to blow steam at us, which has been going since the early 1900s which is no surprise there.
I suppose this is directe towards me. Ah well shrinkng violents and all that.
Ah, what learned reponse, and how very fucking revealing.
Well, if one has followed, and this is advanced in the sheerest optimism, IR issues in the last year, one has seen effects of Bush’s FP team’s incompetance (ex-the excellent 9/01-12/01 FP policy).
Immediate effects may be noted in, as noted, increasing frustration even in conservative, pro-American sources such as the Financial Times and the Economist.
Now we can engage in sly “Liberal” bashing as the implied (and historically inaccurate) Carter comparision, or we can engage in informed and present oriented analysis. Insofar as the present respondant seems at best poorly educated as to international institutions and policy, never mind history, I shall leave him or her aside.
In re Sam’s comments, I am relatively if only moderately sure that Sam understands the legal difference between signing and ratifying a treaty and that the recent actions by Bush were nothing but piece of theatre to satisfy the red-meat, know-nothing crowd (e.g. some recent posters).
Perhaps if we had followed Carter’s foreign policy-putting much much more emphasis on human rights-perhaps things might be better off-no?
I find this scary. VERY scary.
Then please walk me through his engaged agenda - excluding that only associated with his post-9/11 short-term crisis - because I’m not aware of any constructive engagement whatsoever.
Contrast with this here - from one of those fact sheets I linked to above - This might also go some way to answer MGibson’s question
“The International Criminal Court (ICC), unlike national courts,** has no direct powers of enforcement**, apart from a few limited powers of investigation in the exceptional situation when a state’s criminal justice system has collapsed. It cannot execute arrest warrants, search homes or buildings or compel witnesses to attend trial. The ICC will depend on national authorities to perform these roles, unless states consent to the ICC doing so. It is therefore essential for the effective working of the ICC, that countries which have ratified the Rome Statute (Statute) of the ICC (states parties) cooperate fully, from the opening of an investigation to the enforcement of a sentence.”
What you thunk, unreasonable ?
Sheer poetry. However good sir, mostly untrue.
The Carter comment was not sly liberal basing, considering his disastrous foreign policy is basic history. He still gets booed to this day.
The increasing frustration you mention is actually pretty outdated. Early on, it was voiced, but now is all but dead since we are out of the slump.
Odd enough, you hold yourself in very high esteem and have quite the perch on that pedestal, but you’ve done nothing really but give meaningless rhetoric to people’s opinions who differ from yours.
Well, reality might get a grip on you one day and you’ll drop the attitude. Let’s just hope you never write a book;)
Actually, Carter has a very good post-presidency record. They don’t call him “The Best Ex-President” for nothing.
You mean to tell me he has a foreign policy? This guy is a complete idiot. Just listen to him talk sometime.
According to a Heritage Foundation Report [bias alert!] the ICC will not offer (or does not guarantee) the same legal protections to defendants as the US Constitution does. The report claims that the ICC will not have these features:
-
No right to trial by jury.
-
No right to reasonable bail or speedy trial.*
-
Anonymous witnesses and hearsay evidence may be allowed.
-
No prohibition of double jeopardy.
I don’t know if the above claims are true, but if even one of them is accurate then I don’t think the US Government has any business setting up a court that circumvents the Bill of Rights.
- Actually “no bail” is probably reasonable for war crimes, but speedy trials should still be required.
Hey Vic Ferrari, You do realise you’re quoting a document dated February 5, 1999. Fings, old chum, have moved on a little since then.
Whoops, I hadn’t noticed. Thanks for pointing it out, London_Calling. I take it that the treaty has corrected all of the things the report points out?
firstly, as i am neither a miltiary officer, nor a English Lord, although perhaps there is some chance of illegit descent, let’s drop the sir, for not only does it irritate me, it’s an archaicism which doesn’t have much entertaiment value either.
Now, ‘mostly untrue’ refers to what, pray tell?
Really? I’ve seen him at several public functions and nary a boo did I hear. Your evidence for this is what?
As to his FP, well I suppose we’re making ref to the knee-jerk neo-con smear in re his Iran policy. Not great to be sure, but then what was? Panama canal, actually a stroke of brilliance in the long run, however much the giveway folks like to piss and moan. What else, well overall USSR policy? Not brilliant perhaps, but… disastrous?
Really, well fuck all what do I know finding today’s FT ref’ing Bush old boy as hypocrite in chief, must have been a motherfucking joke, eh?
Out of a slump indeed.
Right, spank me then.
This from someone who isn’t able to distinguish UN from ICC.
No. The same problems are there now as then, since the treaty has not been changed since 1998 – which, when you think of it, it couldn’t be. You cannot attempt to ratify an “in flux” document, or different countries would be ratifying different documents.
The party line of the U.S. government is that the treaty offers insufficient protections to American personnel, for reasons Vic gave above. There are also objections to parts of it (specifically, Article 12) that are deemed inconsistent with other sections. My understanding is that the U.S. has openly averred that it would decline to ratify the treaty in its present form almost literally from the moment Clinton signed it – making that signature itself mostly a symbolic act.
Anyone interested in the government’s position is welcome to go to the seach page for the Department of State, which is here. Put in as a search term “international criminal court”, in quotes. You will pull up a “no results found” page, but also an “advanced search” window. Put the same seach term in as an advanced search and run it again; it will bring up a bunch of stuff, including some speeches and position papers that set out the government’s position.
The first part of this is simply an opinion; the second is obviously incorrect. While the U.S.'s retreat does not impact the treaty as it is ratified by other countries, which will then be bound by it (if they don’t break it), the U.S.'s legal position as a withdrawn signatory is far different than its legal position had it ratified the treaty – in the former case, the U.S. is not legally bound by the treaty, in the latter case, it is. Now, in either case there might be real problems with enforcement should the U.S. refuse to abide by the treaty; but there is no legal basis to hold the U.S. to the standards of a treaty it has not ratified and has in fact withdrawn from.
I also notify the discussion at large that I have very little invested in this topic and therefore am not willing to take any shit about it. Those unable to be minimally civil in discussing the topic are cordially and pre-emptively invited to shove it.
As far as I can tell, Jodi’s absolutely right: the 1998 version is the final version. Here’s a link to it.
It doesn’t even contain the word “jury”, much less guarantee the right to be judged by one. It also doesn’t seem to guarantee the right of a defendant to cross-examine witnesses.
I’ll stick with my rights under the 6th Amendment, thanks.
Just wanted to say…
Welcome to the boards, ThenHeCame
If december is in favor of it, then it must be a bad idea. 
I’m disappointed in the decision, of course, but hardly surprised – this is merely a continuation of Bush’s pre-9/11 policy of total disregard for the rest of the world. Which is rather odd, since IMO isolationism and globalization don’t work well together.
I just wonder how much harder it will be for Mr. Dubya to round up international support for his “war on terrorism” (and the oh-so-desired war with Iraq) after this.
The ICC certainly isn’t necessary for the United States to cooperate with the rest of the world. We’ve managed to cooperate with Canada, Mexico, western Europe, Japan, and South Korea without the ICC.
Marc
I think, in a sense, a lot of this is academic (enforcement being the key here not the evolution of the legislation) but hey ho:
Jodi, sure, the original Statute was comprehensive but this is a ground-breaking piece of international legislation that has to stand up to interpretation in courts the world over – monstrous amounts of work have been done since the original drafting. As I understand it, the important document is Resolution F which establishes the timescale of the ‘Preparatory Commission’.
This UN document walks us through how that has worked.
In addition, as a lawyer, I’m sure you’ll appreciate the work done as outlined, for example here (particular note of sections: ‘General remarks’ and 'Elements of war crimes - General principles of criminal law '):
I guess we can argue about to what extent that has, or has not altered the original intention of the clauses, but how about considering this document as a short cut ?:
Dear Mr Bush… – an interesting interpretation of the reach of the ICC. Quote:
"A chief reason for “un-signing” the ICC treaty, as expressed informally by some representatives of your Administration, is the possibility that U.S. servicemembers could be brought before the ICC to defend war crimes charges arising, for example, from a U.S. peacekeeping mission.
Under the provisions of the ICC treaty, the chance of this is highly remote – and un-signing the treaty would not in any way alter that possibility.
At the time the ICC treaty was drafted, U.S. negotiators succeeded in adding several provisions that would make it extremely unlikely for any U.S. citizen to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. One key provision – complementarity – gives countries with strong legal systems like the United States’ the right to exercise jurisdiction over cases involving their own citizens, **as long as their legal systems are willing or able to do so. In such cases, the ICC is precluded from becoming involved, even in cases where the national legal system ultimately decides not to prosecute. **"
Re first sentence, see the immediate quote above. Second sentence, I don’t know…?
Well, yes and no, IMHO. US negotiators have done a whole bunch of work with friendly countries in which personnel are stationed (since 1999) to ensure US personnel won’t potentially fall into the ICC’s jurisdiction - the position has changed in many jurisdictions as a direct in the foreshadow of the ICC but so personnel will be tried extra-ICC.
I think the final point I want to make is that this (the ICC) really isn’t about the United States of America – well, that is unless the military – and then the US Court dealing with the matter - seemingly do something quite extraordinary. The purpose of the ICC, IMHO, is to create an international legal framework that says to potential political psychopaths and nutballs:
"Look, wherever you are, we’re gonna get you, Mr Milosevic , Mr Pinochet, Mr Machete Man of Rwanda – it’s about ending the immunity prosecution (its origins lie in the aftermath of atrocities in Bosnia like Srebrenica. Now, the headline sound bites talks of Genocide, etc but the ICC is also about protecting the rights of women and children (Rape, etc) who, until now, have had little or no protection from the excesses of war. If it has any relevance to well disciplined Western military’s, it has to do with trying to address the potential for military tribunal cover ups, IMHO.
The purpose and thrust of the ICC is not US-centric – but it is Genocide, women, children (etc)-centric, IMHO.
This feeling is far from universal. Although I don’t necessarily agree with the structure not the conclusions of this link, these feelings are out there:
http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus050302.asp