US calls for a Netherlands Invasion Clause

[rah]

Originally posted by Roland
Rah: You are sooooooo easily influenced....

Yep, Yep, Yep.

But not really. If these are a fair sampling ( ) of what are supposed allies are thinking, I'd hate to think what our real (ones that will actually do something besides just blowing impotent hot air) enemies are thinking.

RAH

[Ned]

Roland, The anti-exclusion clause specifically addresses "immunity." Here is the article in full.

Article 27


Irrelevance of official capacity

1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

[Roland]

Good, let's go searching....

Art 98.1.

1. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.

So, functional immunity for an acting president - against arrest etc. Not against responsibility, but that is no change to int. law anyway.

[Arrian]

I'll second RAH's take on the matter. Gee, Marcus I wonder why Americans fear that such a court would target Americans? Listen to yourself! You're practically frothing at the mouth.

All nations, and their citizens should be accountable. But if a court is going to be used as a political tool to target one nation by its enemies, that's not justice. And that's what we fear, whether that fear is reasonable or not. There has got to be a way to compromise on the issue, because I think an international court for war crimes is a great idea, and will be more effective with us than without us.

Hypocrisy? Yes, there is US hypocrisy here, and I don't like it. But I am also confused by the apparent the inability (or unwillingness) of some Euros to understand American concerns about the court.

-Arrian

[MikeH]

All nations, and their citizens should be accountable. But if a court is going to be used as a political tool to target one nation by its enemies, that's not justice.

No and assuming that's how it'll be used is just paranoia.

[Roland]

I can understand when one has concerns. I also have some issues with the ICC statute.

What I do not understand is that every argument about international agreements in the US boils down to an outburst of chauvinism, "we won't let those barefoot barbarians judge what our glorious nation does", "all are against us", and in which the treaty is grossly distorted. And that is what the Bush admin has spouted, and Helms (or whichever idiot came up with the Hague-invasion-clause) is just the most extreme manifestation of that problem.

[Ecthy]

I think they call it "jingoism" though, I even doubt the word "chauvinism" exists in that language.

Not certain though

[MikeH]

Yeah, if a US military leader was found to commit some war crimes then why shouldn't they be tried? It'd be the same if it was an Iraqi, a Brit, a Dutchman or Slobodan.

[Ecthy]

After doing a LEO...

..everything taken back


http://dict.leo.org/

[Arrian]

I think the US gov't is in fact being paranoid about this - the Bush administration has gone more and more unilateral, and much of it has to do with the "with us or against us" mindset they've fallen into. I mentioned the fears about the court not because I personally feel that those fears are reason enough to oppose it, but because that is the reason given. And though I don't agree, I can understand why there is concern.

Like I said, there has to be a way to compromise... some way of protecting against witch hunts.

By the way, Roland, I happen to agree with you most of the time. However, even you must admit that the rest of the world often does a good job of showing us that they are "all against us." (with the exceptions of the UK and Israel)

-Arrian

[MikeH]

I'll admit that, but do you not think that the US often does a good job of showing the rest of the world that they feel themselves to be superior to the rest of us and outside the boundaries of international law?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, like Rome did. We don't want to tread that path (ie, we should learn from history).

[MikeH]

And the UK did too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, the UK was a bit better actually... it did participate in the international sphere, and was involved very much with diplomacy. Didn't usually go it alone, but had allies, which it tried not to piss off too much .

[Roland]

"However, even you must admit that the rest of the world often does a good job of showing us that they are "all against us." (with the exceptions of the UK and Israel)"

Yes, but a good deal of that is created by your government, at least as far as western europe is concerned. With the "war on terror", you lost us with the "axis of evil".... and that includes the UK, even Blair gets the jitters about that. The steel tariffs are another excellent way to piss off everyone.