US calls for a Netherlands Invasion Clause

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I never mentioned national or international law.

If you are going to bring in the US court system into this as a basis for comparison, which you have done so in this and other threads, then you have to deal with the differences between the two systems one way or the other. Otherwise, your whole "fetish" with that comparison is based on nothing more than specious speculation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you are going to bring in the US court system into this as a basis for comparison, which you have done so in this and other threads, then you have to deal with the differences between the two systems one way or the other.

Why, if it has no basis in this analogy. And the differences in the two systems is no greater than the differences between the US system and, say, the German system.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why, if it has no basis in this analogy.

Are we still talking about that? I thought that we were talking about your "need" to compare the ICC to the SCOTUS even when they fulfill different roles within thier respective systems. Comparisons between the two are irrelevent. If you really wish to discuss how politics will affect the way the ICC will function, you can take a look at the ad hoc tribunal handling the trial of Milosevic.

[DinoDoc]

Here's an interesting page on this subject: http://www.house.gov/international_relations/77896.pdf

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you really wish to discuss how politics will affect the way the ICC will function, you can take a look at the ad hoc tribunal handling the trial of Milosevic

Here is MY CHANCE to say Bad analogy .

The ad hoc tribunals are created by the Security Council, which is a political body. The ICC is a Judicial body.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The ad hoc tribunals are created by the Security Council, which is a political body. The ICC is a Judicial body.

Don't make me have to dig up your quote stating that the set up and functioning of the ICTY was a victory for the ICC.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't make me have to dig up your quote stating that the set up and functioning of the ICTY was a victory for the ICC.

It still is. It acknowledges that courts are needed. However, the process is MUCH more political because it was set up by the SC rather than a permanent ICC.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It still is. It acknowledges that courts are needed.

The tribunals themselves come with thier own set of problems that will likely only be magnified in the ICC given its expanded mandate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The tribunals themselves come with thier own set of problems that will likely only be magnified in the ICC given its expanded mandate.

There is nothing in the world that does not have its own problems.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There is nothing in the world that does not have its own problems.

Well, I happen to consider corruption, mismanagement, cost, and the alienation of the people they were intended to help, etc. to be signifigant problems.

[Ecthy]

Two Americans debating about their own country's international role. How bizarre.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I happen to consider corruption, mismanagement, cost, and the alienation of the people they were intended to help, etc. to be signifigant problems.

Yes, there would be problems with an ad hoc tribunals, involving mismanagment and cost (give me examples of corruption because I don't believe you on it)... alienation of the people of that country doesn't matter. The people violated international law.

A permanant ICC can allievate those problems. You would have a set procedure for all trials, and judges that are the best in the world. The cost would be minimized by a permanent court (rather than temporary courts, where everything would have to be redone from scratch).

And Etch, get out more .

[Ecthy]

Surreal, to say the least.

[DinoDoc]

We aim to please, Ecthelion.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(give me examples of corruption because I don't believe you on it)

A 2001 investigation by the UN’s internal watchdog unit charged that defendants prosecuted by the ICTY and the ICTR had in some cases induced their UN-appointed counsel to pay kickbacks to them or their family members. The Chief Prosecutor has no authority to hire prosecutors who work under her. Hiring decisions are made by registrars of the two tribunals, and it has been alleged that qualified lawyers recommended by the Chief Prosecutor are often passed over in favor of less qualified lawyers preferred by the registrar.

I got it from a recent Congressional hearing on the subject.

... alienation of the people of that country doesn't matter. The people violated international law.

Yes, this ties into my point that these types of tribunals have come at the cost of support for national justice systems.

A permanant ICC can allievate those problems.

The only thing that I can see it allievating is that of cost. The rest of them would be in danger of being replicated in the nascent body being created.