US Opts Out of World Court

[TCO]

Roland, we did the heavy lifting of the Cold War.

BTW, your article 3 sounds very bland to me. Who will define what it really means? Moboto of Zimbabwe?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now Roland... tell Floyd, Dino, and GP why the ICC is a good thing please .

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW, your article 3 sounds very bland to me. Who will define what it really means?

Internationally recognized human rights are done by treaty (and resolutions in the UN). That decides what it is meant .

[Roland]

- you did the heavy lifting ? what exactly ?

- What Art 3 ? 21 para 3 ? There's a bunch of international legal documents, and figuring out general principles of law is routine in international law. Besides, you have detailed rules in the statute and the addenda on rules of procedure and evidence.

[TCO]

Roland,

1. Stationed troops in Europe and Korea. Led Korean and VietNamese war efforts as well as various other brush fires. Spent lots of money on military,

2. I meant para 3. How closely does that addenda match what Americans are used to in terms of protections. And how will it really be administered. Impartially? Or more subject to political pressure. for instance if you have a Lt. Calley will he get his fair shake or be a scapegoat.

[TCO]

I don't see what the US has to gain from signing this treaty...

The dangers of having it applied in a meddlesome manner outway the benefits of being able to look good by signing a powerless "feel good" document.

We've been a bastion of freedom for a long time and have tried to avoid entanglements to our advantage.

If there was something tangible that we got out of it (like you do in a co-defense treaty) I would be more interested...

[Imran Siddiqui]

for instance if you have a Lt. Calley will he get his fair shake or be a scapegoat

He couldn't be tried by the ICC, since he was tried by the United States courts.

[TCO]

Well when would this ICC swing into action?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GP
I don't see what the US has to gain from signing this treaty...

The dangers of having it applied in a meddlesome manner outway the benefits of being able to look good by signing a powerless "feel good" document.

We've been a bastion of freedom for a long time and have tried to avoid entanglements to our advantage.

If there was something tangible that we got out of it (like you do in a co-defense treaty) I would be more interested...

Don't we gain from international cooperation? Don't we gain from more political integration... so that we can spread our culture of human rights across the world? The US has been interested in spreading 'human rights' since 1914... this would solidify that. Unless we don't gain from spreading 'human rights' and in that case, that admission makes us lose face.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well when would this ICC swing into action?

Hmmm, not sure... is it sometime in 2003, Roland?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Don't we gain from international cooperation? Don't we gain from more political integration... so that we can spread our culture of human rights across the world? The US has been interested in spreading 'human rights' since 1914... this would solidify that. Unless we don't gain from spreading 'human rights' and in that case, that admission makes us lose face.

I think we spread more of that by force of arms and by the example of what we are. I rate this pretty low in terms of how this treaty will actually affect the bad actors out there. It's a feel good exercise for academic lawyers...

[TCO]

Originally posted by GP
Well when would this ICC swing into action?

I mean what situations would it swing into action for. "Not another Calley but X." Define X.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think we spread more of that by force of arms and by the example of what we are. I rate this pretty low in terms of how this treaty will actually affect the bad actors out there. It's a feel good exercise for academic lawyers...

And is was the EU Court of Justice a feel good exercise for academic lawyers? The ICC has a chance to become as powerful as that body has been over the EU, in a few decades. Then will you say the same?

And that force of arms has created a lot of animosity and the laughing at us when we even say 'human rights'. And example of who are? Shouldn't we set the example that countries should join the international organizations? If we want them to be a part of the World Bank, how can we say, you should be a part of one IO, but not all of them?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mean what situations would it swing into action for. "Not another Calley but X." Define X.

AHH... well it swings into action for crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, which are not prosecuted (truely... ie, can't be a sham trial) in the state which the people who committed the crime come from. Since the US prosecuted Calley, the ICC can't take it up.

[Roland]

GP:

"Stationed troops in Europe and Korea. Led Korean and VietNamese war efforts as well as various other brush fires."

And we were part of the frontline, you had the luxury of being etappe.

"Spent lots of money on military"

Not so much more than europe. Add the draft most european countries had much longer.

"How closely does that addenda match what Americans are used to in terms of protections."

Haven't read the add-ons in detail. Usually it is a mix of anglo and european continental rules. How it compares is difficult to say. Roughly: Less than OJ, more than the average crack******.

"The dangers of having it applied in a meddlesome manner outway the benefits of being able to look good by signing a powerless "feel good" document."

So if it works as intended it is powerless. Else, it suddenly becomes so powerful as to be meddlesome ? Anyway, a state can withdraw (Art 127).

As for the advantage of the US - if you share the common US view that global anarchy is benefcial, there is none for you.