Talk:International Criminal Court/Archive 2

message: Amassador John Boulton articulated the position of the US Government on the ICC, and this is now posted. http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/25818.htmCurrently Human Rights Watch speaks to the US constitutionality of the ICC, and it cites only an advocacy POV for support. Why have Human Rights Watch express a POV? 
The US Government speaks to the constitutionality of the ICC. Any opinions that oppose the official view of the government should cite at minimum a US court decision or other official source, not a political advocacy document that is intended to express a single POV. http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm 
The actual position of the US Government on the ICC is the actual position of the US Government, we should include only official sources to express the POV of the US Government. Human Rights Watch may not contradict it in regard to what it's positions are. Raggz 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Speaks for the US?

message: The US objections are central to this page and should not be moved.
The US objections represent a fundamental issue not addressed. Different people in different nations have different legal human rights. All have those guaranteed by the UN Charter, but some (including those in the US) legally have greater human rights than do most. The government of the US cannot constitutionally enter into any treaty that diminishes the legal human rights of her citizens at any trial. If the Senate were to do so, the Supreme Court would strike the treaty on constitutional grounds. An American tried before the ICC is denied any form of appeal, and this court operates without any formal judicial peer-review. For many similar reasons, the greater legal human rights of US citizens preclude US participation with the ICC. The human rights guaranteed by the ICC need to US standards, or higher, otherwise the US Government lacks the constitutional authority to enter into any ICC treaty. An increase in human rights for all would be a good thing?
There are many people for whom the human rights guaranteed by the UN Charter are merely theoretical. Their governments offer them greatly reduced legal access to human rights. Such Nations chose to deny the ICC any jurisdiction.
The US objections dominate this discussion because the issue of dissimilar human rights in each nation is the primary obstacle to expansion of ICC jurisdiction. ^^^^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I disagree

message: I'm removing this paragraph:
:In April of 2003, Belgian attorney Jan Fermon filed suit to bring US General Tommy Franks to trial in front of the ICC for "war crimes" which he alleges the general committed during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The reason is that the Jan Fermon case was brought under Belgium's own war crimes laws, and has nothing to do with the ICC. This particular Belgian law (which has since been repealed) is frequently confused with the ICC, but the two have nothing to do with each other. See  for more details.
--Mprudhom 17:14, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgian war crimes law 

message: The paragraph on US objections can be further enlightened by stating the fact that the US even adopted a law, by some called the 'The Hague invasion act', which states that in case of any US citizen being under trial in the ICC, the US has a possible action to use force to 'free' this US citizen. 
- Regards,  user Bob.v.R, the Netherlands
Okay, I see  that the 'The Hague invasion act' is mentioned already.  However, now I would like to suggest that the articles on US objections are bundled together, and not have them scattered like they are now. 
- Regards, Bob.v.R
I think in this sentence, the last part should be deleted:
"A resolution to exempt citizens of the U.S. from jurisdiction of the court was renewed in 2003 by Resolution 1487, but when after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq it became clear that there was no majority for it, the US withdrew its second proposed renewal of the resolution ****that would have led to a permanent right for exemption by customary law.****"
Customary international law does not develop in two or three years and by means of two or three resolutions of the security council; it takes a lot more.
This section seems to focus heavily on the reasons why US objections are unfounded.  Does anyone else see that?  If I am right, the whole section needs to be re-written so as to adopt a more neutral stance. -Kp
I agree.  I deleted several aspects of this section and added a link to a more detailed disscussion on the US posistion.  I also deleted several sentences that were inncorect or unecessary.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:I cannot believe the whole section about the US exemption that was only abolished after Abu Ghraib was deleted. Shame on you. Añoranza 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US exemption

message: I modified this sentence "Treaties not ratified by the United States Senate have no legal standing in the U.S. unless and until that ratification takes place."
Reasons for my modifications:
* technically speaking, it is possible for a treaty not ratified by the US Senate to have legal standing under US law. An "executive agreement" (ratified by the President but not the Senate) can have legal effect under US domestic law through normal legislation passed by both Houses of Congress enforcing it. Under the terminology of US constitutional law, such an agreement is not a "treaty", but an "executive agreement" -- but under international law they are both treaties, this distinction being a purely US domestic distinction.
* "have no legal standing in the U.S." is unclear. According to the Vienna Convention, the signature of a treaty by a state creates some legal obligations for the state, although these legal obligations are different from those created by ratification. (Ratification creates obligations to comply with the treaty's terms, whereas signature only creates obligations not to "defeat the object and purpose of the treaty" (article 18).) So, as a matter of international law, treaties not ratified by the United States still create legal obligations for the United States. But as a matter of US domestic law, no obligations are created. I changed the text to clarify the fact that the "no legal standing" means no legal effect under US domestic law, not no legal effect under international law.
(In fact, the mere signature of a treaty, without ratification, could influence in some limited circumstances domestic law -- e.g. it may be given some consideration in the interpretation of legislation, or in deciding cases where there is no clear domestic legislation or legal precedents.)
--Samuel
How could any signature offered without the authority of the government be binding?Raggz 09:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a distinction without a difference.  Something that creates an obligation under international law, but creates no obligation under domestic law, as a practical matter creates no obligation.  But, even under a theoretical legal framework, if the world is on notice that the "supreme law" of a country says that no obligation is entered into if not ratified in X,Y,Z fashion, then no obligation is created without such ratification.  After all, you have to have legal authority to enter into any agreement, and the President of the United States, on his own, does not in this case.  (Which, incidentally, brings up the very interesting case of executive agreements.  It is entirely unclear whether the president has the legal authority to enter into such agreements if they do, indeed, create international legal obligations for the United States.  To get around this legal issue, the question is simply not asked.) Epstein's Mother 12:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What we are discussing are signatures offered on behalf of the US Government by elected officers who are known by all to lack the authority to bind the US to any treaty. Such signatures were offered by Al Gore at Kyoto and by Clinton on the ICC, but these signatures clearly lacked authority. Legally, these signatures were equivalent to forged signatures. 
No executive order may conflict with an actual law, if it does it is automatically nullified (Presidents may not pass laws). No executive order can serve as a treaty, in other words no executive order may bind the Government of the US as a treaty would. 
The example above includes a legislative act, so even without an executive order it is enforcible internally.
To bind the US internationally, this is what a treaty does. Any action so binding the US must meet the constitutional requirements for any treaty. 
"... such an agreement is not a "treaty", but an "executive agreement" -- but under international law they are both treaties, this distinction being a purely US domestic distinction." Not true. No treaty is binding upon the US unless it was entered into with the authority of the US Government. No federal officer or agency may do so without the formal consent of the Senate. 
Raggz 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of US signature of ICC statute 

message: In the article: 
As of October 2005, the following 100 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICC Statute: [3]
By June 2005 around 100 states had signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S., including at least seven of them that signed the agreement secretly.
Eh? Does that make sense? So every country that signed the statue also signed the bilateral ammendment?? Does anyone understand the numbers? I'm pretty sure that my conclusion is wrong...
- Gerrit (2/11/2005)
: No, most of the European nations, and a number of American nations, haven't signed the agreement. Rsynnott 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of article 98 agreements 

message: Like the recently added bits about the reasons for US opposition. Suggest should also refer to allegations of historic war crimes by CIA-backed allies e.g. Pinochet. AndrewRT 12:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, but this would mean a new paragraph. Suppose it would have to discuss the School of the Americas, Operation Condor, et cetera. Let's have suggestions here before introducing it.--Nomen Nescio 11:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be highly relevant to refer to the increasingly frequent allegations of war crimes by the US military in Iraq. (Barend 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US objections 

message: I cut the following from the article as I don't think it belongs in the objections section:
Until the past two centuries, transportation and communication over great distances was difficult, and so governing over distances was also difficult. But now, corporations act internationally, governments act internationally in furtherance of their military and political goals, diseases spread internationally, terrorism occurs in complete disregard to national borders, and refugees spread across national borders from conflicts in such a way that no armed conflict can safely be ignored by the international community. The main institution that affects the lives of people and protects them, but does not do so internationally, is the law. If all the activities which are governed by laws occur on an international stage, the law must also act on an international stage.
While some may have qualms about present-day arrangements for the Court with certain States Parties lacking credibility given their own level of political and legal development or due to other circumstantial factors, in cases involving egregious crimes of a local majority individual against a foreign (or minority) individual, the principle that those with some distance from a controversy at hand (in this case, representatives from foreign countries who would not be as likely to align themselves with one side or another) are often, in aggregate, more capable of being objective is well-recognized in legal and ethical systems around the world.
Just as neighbors are not expected to be reliable in adjudicating serious conflicts, especially where they are themselves concerned parties, assuming there is an adequately constituted police force at hand, so too is it seen that justice (or injustice) is not the exclusive property of one nation or its people.
While this may all be true and I agree with it personally, the tone isn't very NPOV. But perhaps something of use can be extracted from it. --Bjarki 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the objections section 

message: By June 2005 around 100 states had signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S., including at least seven of them that signed the agreement secretly. Many of these agreements are with non-States Parties to the Court. 58 of the 100 countries have not signed these bilateral agreements, despite U.S. pressure. Now have 100 signed or not? Get-back-world-respect 19:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the latter "signed" is supposed to be "ratified" instead? --Bjarki 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article 

message: ::I think I owe Cecropia an apology for one of the comments I posted above. I put a comment talking about "your right wing propaganda" which was taken to mean that I was describing his views as right wing propaganda. I meant "your" in the sense of your country, as I assumed that he was American, and I was talking about the right wing "propaganda" (in my POV) you hear from certain American commentators. I accept that this didn't come across well, and I apologise for this. AndrewRT 17:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the entire section pulling out the substantive criticisms that the americans draw. I hope everyone's happy with it - apologies if I've missed anything out inadvertantly. I've included a reference to the US constitution as above. I accpt that I'm baised - being a campaigner for the court - so if anyone can help with improving NPOV i'd appreciate the input, although I've tried to be as NPOV as I could. AndrewRT 20:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: Looking at the article now, I think that the section on US Objections makes this article too long. Would there be any objections to me creating a new article - possibly United States and the International Criminal Court - along the lines of the cases before the ICC section leaving a summary here and allowing links from other articles like Foreign relations of the United States and Foreign_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration? AndrewRT 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Objections - new article? 

message: The ICC article is about an emerging judicial system, and about it's struggle to be relevant. To move the discussion of the process of ICC emergence is to presume that the ICC has already attained wide jurisdiction, which it has not. When (and if) this occurs, at this point the problems the ICC curently faces will have passed. Presently the ICC faces credibility and jurisidictional challenges that should be addressed. These exisit, we need to address them. Raggz 09:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I object

message: The US claims that it is not trying to undermine the ICC, rather protecting its own interests as a non-state party. Is the heading title a bit POV? AndrewRT 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not mutually exclusive. The US certainly is protecting its interests, but in doing so it clearly undermines the ICC. By blackmailing countries into signing non-extradiction treaties it is certainly not helping the ICC. Nomen Nescio 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point. However by saying they are "attempts to undermine" we are making an assertion that that undermining the ICC is the motive behind US actions. I would prefer something more neutral. AndrewRT 09:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "contravene" be a better word?--Looper5920 09:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am open to suggestions. At this moment I can't think of a way of presenting both positions within a succinct header. Nomen Nescio 11:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: U.S. protectionism contravenes the ICC
Not perfect, but what do you think? Nomen Nescio 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest US reactions to the court. This is neutral enough as a header and allows the article itself to discuss the motives AndrewRT 13:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this sounds more NPOV. At least better than what it says now. Nomen Nescio 15:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for your inputs. AndrewRT 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. attempts to undermine the ICC  

message: The position of the United States should be correctly stated. If incorrectly stated, it should be re-stated with the corrct citation. There is no need for any of us to edit the official postion of the US Government, nor to "spin" it. There is n obligation to correctly state this.
Does anyone have an actual reference where the US Government has taken any position other than to deny ICC juridiction over her own citizens? If such an oficial statement of the US Government actually exists, it is highly relevant to post it. Please consider that it is the duty of the United States Govrnment to protect all of her citizens from the jurisdiction of the ICC, because the ICC does not recognize the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans. So - who has a citation that the US opposes the trial of anyone but Americans by the ICC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality Check

message: Is there any value in having a brief discussion of potential state parties who are in the process of ratifying (perhaps as part of a new article Members of the International Criminal Court) I'm thinking of using information like this:  (Lebanon contemplates joining International Criminal Court) AndrewRT 14:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a listing and status of the 39 members who have signed but not ratified might be appropriate for inclusion here. The article already discusses 40 & 41 and their unsigning (US & Israel). A separate article combining all signatories and their status would certainly be justified. Javadane 17:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've eventually done it - State Parties of the International Criminal Court. Hope you all like it. How about taking out the list of countries from this article and just leaving the narrative and map? --AndrewRT 23:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential State Parties 

message: I don't think it is necessary to go into this amount of detail about US objections. This article is about the ICC, not US foreign policy. There is already an article United States and the International Criminal Court and all this new information should be incorporated in there.
Meanwhile this article should only retain a short paragraph summarising the main points. AndrewRT 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact there is no new material, it is old material that had been removed. The probability that a reader goes to a separate article about a country and the ICC is significantly lower than that this article is read. The Security Council resolutions regarding the US exemption are a special case, something without precedent, and they are important also as many people think that US citizens cannot be tried at the ICC, which is not true. Añoranza 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US objections 

message: Like all treaties, the ICC has its good points and its bad points. The article, aside from the "objections" sections from different countries, highlights little of the shortcomings of the International Criminal Court. The United States' objections to the ICC, however unfounded they may seem to some, are pertinent and relevant to the ICC itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:The article doesn't have much about the good points or arguments in favour of the court either. This is an article about the ICC, not about US objections. I would like to limit the section length to a few paragraphs. I won't intervene now, but if it gets much bigger I will. There is no need to go into detail about something where there is already a more detailed article in existence. AndrewRT 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument for U.S. objections 

message: I added the section on victims participation since it was such an important issue at the Rome Conference. Forgot to sign in with my user name when I did it though, so only my IP address shows up... Constructive comments welcome.
Wl219 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  victims participation 

message: I think these statements object more to the idea of a referral of Zimbabwe to the ICC rather than a fundamental isagreement with the ICC per se. Therefroe I would like to move to Cases before the International Criminal Court#Zimbabwe -AndrewRT - Talk 21:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimbabwe criticisms 

message: Hi, I'm new to English version of Wiki but I've contributed on  updates related to Japan before and I did so just moments before this entry too. You mention the Crime of Aggression in the very first part of the page but you only mention that CAG is NOT within the jurisdiction of the Court very briefly with explanations, very late in the page under Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. I think this structure is problematic because it is a given fact that CAG DOES NOT fall under the Court's jurisdiction until the definition of the crime is set, as you explained in the section. I think some section of this explanatory part should be included in the VERY BEGINNING so that it will not make viewers who only take a glance of the first few paragraphs of the page and say, "Hey, the ICC DOES have jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression!", having misguided knowledge about the Court's ACTUAL jurisdiction. So can the very first sentence of the page be rephrased as something like the following?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is also desgined to have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but it can only exercise it when the defenition of the crime is set (Add a reference link connecting to the reasons here --> This one).
Would this work for you? As an advocate of the ICC myself and being a member of the NGO Coalition for the ICC (CICC), I find it pertinent to have this information laid out in the very beginning to facilitate better and correct understanding of the Court's capabilities and limits. I'd appreciate it if you can consider making this change. Thank you.--Etranger3 01 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I agree it needs to be clear how the court works and its jurisdiction, especially bearing in mind how much disinformation and mis-assumptions there are out there. However, I like the way the currnt version is worded. The court was established to prosecute aggression (inter alia), and looking at the way the talks are going it appears likely that it will in the not too distant future get jurisdiction over this area. The next sentence "although it cannot currently exercise its jurisdiction" immediately solves the problems of anyone who is misguided as you mentioned. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Crime of Aggression (CAG) 

message: The following paragraph was recently added to the lead section:
:“The ICC is strongly related to the concept of human security, which focuses on ensuring the security of individuals. The court was created under this train of thought, and it provides enforcement of it.”
I'm removing it for the following reasons:
#It's not attributable.  The reference provided doesn't say the ICC is “strongly related” to the concept of human security or that “the court was created under this train of thought”.
#It's clearly out of place in the lead section, as per WP:LEAD.
#It seems bizarre to discuss human security in this article without discussing other concepts which are more clearly relevant to the court, such as human rights, universal jurisdiction, the responsibility to protect, etc.  
Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human security

message: I added "The Rome Statute does not recognize the Right to Jury Trial".
This is an important fact. First is is merely a disclosure of what civil liberties are respected by the ICC and which are not. Second, this ommission is central to the future growth of the ICC, because ommitting it requires the US Govenment to organize global opposition.
These eleven words bring this section to a NPOV. Why hide central facts from the reader?
Raggz 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rights of the accused

message: This section is unclear as to how judicial objectivity is maintained prior to trial. Under rights of the accused, it is claimed there is a preumption of innocence. In this section, it describes the Court taking sides with the "victim". Now we all want victims to be assisted, but BEFORE a trial is held, how is it determined who is the victim? 
Of course victims require assistance, but shouldn't this assistance be handled by a neutral party?
Raggz 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Victim participation and reparations

message: Why not move this to it's own stubb? It should remain avaialable, but has no relvance to this article.
Raggz 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This section will only get bigger, and the article's already too long. Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The ICC in popular culture

message: "The movement for the creation of an international court to deal with the problem of crimes committed against humanity gained force after the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, established to punish serious crimes committed by the losing sides during World War II. At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Law Commission drafted two draft statutes by the early 1950s, but these were shelved as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.[2]"
This paragraph suggests that Nuremberg and Tokyo are analagous international courts - but the citation itself makes multiple stong cases otherwise. To claim that Nuremberg is an analgous court is to advance a legitimate POV. There is nothing wrong with making this claim, and there is ample support for it. There is another legitimate POV that Nuremberg has no relevance to the ICC. How can these competing POVs be balanced here to attain a NPOV? Really getting into this would take space. I suggest dropping the controversial implication that Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunls are in any way related to the ICC? However the editor manages to attain a NPOV will be fine by me. It is implied, not stated, I could live with this paragraph unchanged, but it could be a lot better.
The UN was the focus for international justice in the 1950's and 60's. Didn't the ICC movement begin later? Were these 1950's drafts used when the ICC was formed?
The Cato Institute citation included specifically opposes a comparison of Nuremberg and the ICC. The first sentence twists its actual context. I'm not certain if it is approprate? 
Does the article need this paragraph? 
How might we attain a NPOV in regard to Nuremberg as relevant analagous tribunal?
Raggz 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early development

message: The United States is an advocate for increased ICC civil rights. The ICC decision to limit these to their present level was among the reasons that the United States did not ratify the ICC treaty. 
Can we agree that this statement meets NPOV standards? It is a fact, check the US Department of State website.
Raggz 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you want to insert this into the article?  I don't see why it's relevant here, but you may wish to consider adding it to the United States and the International Criminal Court article. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: INCREASED ICC CIVIL RIGHTS

message: If I have time, I'll archive this page in a couple of days.  If there are any discussions that people think are active and should be kept, just list them below.  Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving this talk page