US calls for a Netherlands Invasion Clause

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dino...

Then something to allay your fears:

Rome Statute, Article 42, section 2:
The Office shall be headed by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor shall have full authority over the management and administration of the Office, including the staff, facilities and other resources thereof. The Prosecutor shall be assisted by one or more Deputy Prosecutors, who shall be entitled to carry out any of the acts required of the Prosecutor under this Statute. The Prosecutor and the Deputy Prosecutors shall be of different nationalities. They shall serve on a full-time basis.

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

Yes, when the crimes are international crimes, the national justice systems shouldn't be involved. Unfortunetly the ICC defers to national courts. Ugh.

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.

How can mismanagment not be allievated with a court that is permanent compared to temporary. It would seem obvious to me. And also the corruption charge (with the article above).

[Roland]

DinoDoc:

I think you (or Ned?) brought up the point of states abusing the ability to start actions. There are similar provisions in the EU and the ECHR - and they are virtually dead law. Beyond the crow-crow problem, for the simple reason that for every bogus charge X makes, Y can make up ten.

"Where the analogy falls apart in this instance is that in the US court system, equality before the law is an overriding goal. In international law, it isn't even a consideration."

I think both parts of that point do not make sense. What do you mean by that ?

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

Indeed. Are you talking about the Simpson trial, the Rodney King cops state trial, the death sentences in Illinois, the SC's Bush/Gore "decision", or some less prominent issues ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
I think you (or Ned?) brought up the point of states abusing the ability to start actions.

Not this thread. I have brought it up in other threads though.

I think both parts of that point do not make sense. What do you mean by that ?

Politics is part and parcel of the administration of international law and always has been.

I highly doubt that the Rome Statute has the power to change that unless of course you can tell me with a straight face that a Russian or Chinese general who orders the massacre of civilians is even remotely in danger of appearing before the ICC.

Indeed.

I agree with you that they are a problem. However, could you tell me what the points you brought up have to do with the problems of international tribunals?

[Roland]

"Politics is part and parcel of the administration of international law and always has been."

Law (general and individual acts) is the product of politics. Politics produces law according to rules of law. So this is a very general point - what does it tell us in the concrete situation ?

"...unless of course you can tell me with a straight face that a Russian or Chinese general who orders the massacre of civilians is even remotely in danger of appearing before the ICC."

Two aspects. Extradition by home state, or other state. For the home state, China does not participate. Russia will use the 7 year transition IIRC. And any extradition by Russia would be a highly political case. But a permanent court makes it more likely than an ad hoc installed Chechnya court or whatever.

A more important aspect of sovereignty than the fool's freedom is sovereign equality - so I'm still not sure how your "equality" argument plays here ?

"However, could you tell me what the points you brought up have to do with the problems of international tribunals?"

That you could argue for the abolishment of most legal systems and court systems with those arguments. You'll barely get the miouu without the claws (and I'm sure I have somehow misremembered that proverb...)

It is just odd (or maybe not, rather understandable?) that such reservations come from a country with a close-to-defunctional legal system.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
So this is a very general point - what does it tell us in the concrete situation ?

It was written as a response to a post of yours that you don't like politics determining who gets tried and who doesn't get tried for crimes.

But a permanent court makes it more likely than an ad hoc installed Chechnya court or whatever.

Why?

That you could argue for the abolishment of most legal systems and court systems with those arguments.

Roland, I don't believe that I am argueing for the abolishment of any court system as much as I am against thier expansion.

You'll barely get the miouu without the claws (and I'm sure I have somehow misremembered that proverb...)

That just went straight over my head.

It is just odd that such reservations come from a country with a close-to-dysfunctional legal system.

Maybe it's just me but I fail to see how the functioning of the US legal system plays into the value of such reservations. Can you explain it to me? Do it slowly though. I am an American after all.

[Ned]

Guys, The Palestinian high court has ordered the release of one Sa'adat, wanted in Israel for murder of the tourism minister. He is being held by the US and UK in the West Bank pending a Palestinian investigation. This arrangement was brokered to end the Israeli seige of Arafat's compound.

But now the legal process has intervened to upset the basis for a political settlement. It just may provoke another "war," as Israel promised that Sa'adat shall not go free.

This was and remains my point. Without the SC having ultimate authority, rogue Prosecutors could cause wars or prevent their settlement.

(We can only speculate, but did the war against Germany drag on for a time because the Allies made it clear that we wanted nothing but unconditional surrender? If so, how many lives did that cost? Probably millions!)

[Roland]

"It was written as a response to a post of yours that you don't like politics determining who gets tried and who doesn't get tried for crimes."

Yes. Politics in law is a matter of degree. The more individualized the act, the less politics should be involved. Don't you agree ?

"Why?"

Because it eliminates the "unfairly against us poor discriminated victims" argument. Credibility and perception of justice or bias play a big rule, or ?

"I don't believe that I am argueing for the abolishment of any court system as much as I am against thier expansion."

What the court takes on are mostly matters of universal jurisdiction. I prefer an extra court if it brings some order to the system.

"That just went straight over my head."

The cat... the claws.. damn, seems I really forgot that one.

"Maybe it's just me but I fail to see how the functioning of the US legal system plays into the value of such reservations."

You could be projecting some problems of US courts into the ICC. I'm not sure about this, but some of your reservations are hard to follow for me.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Yes. Politics in law is a matter of degree. The more individualized the act, the less politics should be involved. Don't you agree ?

It depends on the situation.

What the court takes on are mostly matters of universal jurisdiction.

For the most part, the crimes within the purveiw of the ICC have only been dealt with before two courts with any sort of regularity: ad hoc tribunals and Belgian Courts. Given the problems with ad hoc tribunals, I don't see a compelling reason to come up with a permanent court to fill thier role until those problems are fixed.

You could be projecting some problems of US courts into the ICC.

I highly doubt that I'm projecting. I'd have mentioned the "danger" of judicial fiat creating new law if I had been.

I'm not sure about this, but some of your reservations are hard to follow for me.

Which ones would you like me to explain further?

[Roland]

"It depends on the situation."

In penal law ? That's a big no-no for me.

"For the most part, the crimes within the purveiw of the ICC have only been dealt with before two courts with any sort of regularity: ad hoc tribunals and Belgian Courts."

Very little in belgian courts, actually. But we have preliminary stuff of that kind in Spain and Britain wrt Pinochet. Or the US act (or doctrine?) allowing claims of victims of certain crimes abroad.

"I'd have mentioned the "danger" of judicial fiat creating new law if I had been."

Didn't we have that one as well ?

"Which ones would you like me to explain further?"

Lack of politics or too much politics ?
Corruption ?
Equality ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
In penal law ? That's a big no-no for me.

You can not imagine a situation in which a tyrant will not step down peacefully unless he is protected against criminal prosecution?

Very little in belgian courts, actually.

Mea culpa.

But we have preliminary stuff of that kind in Spain and Britain wrt Pinochet.

Why was that dropped again?

Didn't we have that one as well ?

Not from me.

Lack of politics or too much politics ?

I haven't been talking about the influence of politics on international law. I only brought it up when either you or Imran appeared, to me at least, to assert that the ICC would remove it from the equation.

Corruption ?

I mentioned that in a post to Imran.

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.

Equality?

Let's just say that I am less optomistic than you are that a permanent member of the SC would ever appear before the ICC if it ever comes into existance.

Anything else?