The US will soon run out of allies if it keeps acting like this

[Roland]

morb:

"is the ICC going to change its prosecution practices depending on the prosecuted's country of origin? unlikely. and even if they did, they'd have to have access to people who know everything about every legal system which is not possible."

If there is a point in this, I don't see it. Please rephrase.

"my original point is that a legal system should work WITHIN a system of government, not BE a system of government. Is there another international body of government at this point which is opposit to but equal in power to the ICC? no!"

Is that supposed to point to checks and balances ? Well this works slightly differently wrt IOs. If the ICC discriminates countries can withdraw. If the ICC acts ultra vires countries can disregard those acts.

Who controls the party puppets in your supreme court ? That system is way less accountable than an international court has to be.

"if you guys in europe want to set up an "international" court of Europe for members of the EU-only, that's fine, if you think this will bring you closer to the goal of unity."

The ECJ and the ECHR have escaped your attention ? Shocking. Or should I say, not surprising.

"the ICC in its current form will likely have no jurisdiction in the US and hopefully most other countries outside of the EU will agree, which should limit its jurisdictional power and its entire purpose."

We're around 70 ratifications at the moment I think. Where do you get the bull**** idea that this is an EU invention ?

[Roland]

Ned:

"The hypo: Citizen of A country is in country B. He has committed no crime in country B. Country B arrests him, puts him in jail and throws away the key.

This is a classic case where virtually every country will at least intervene diplomatically on behalf of their national unfairly locked up. Whether this escallates into more depends on the reaction of country B"

Unfairly locked up ? Well, let's see. The US arrests on its own territory people suspected of being behind the attack on the USS Cole. Now they are unfairly locked up unter your dilettantic attempt to blah about international law.

Read up on what gives jurisdiction under international law.

"It their citizens are arrested abroad, the sovereign must assure that the citizens is accorded due process. Violation of fundamental prinicples of double jeopardy by the ICC is not due process and will provoke country A to protest, or more, depending."

Consular protection. End of story.

Sovereignty is territorial. Not personal. Get it through your skull.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


A step in the right direction, KH.

The hypo: Citizen of A country is in country B. He has committed no crime in country B. Country B arrests him, puts him in jail and throws away the key.

This is a classic case where virtually every country will at least intervene diplomatically on behalf of their national unfairly locked up. Whether this escallates into more depends on the reaction of country B

Next, country B transports the citizen to the Hague for trial under the ICC based on an accusation of country C of war crimes. If country A has already tried their citizen, fairly, and it is not a sham trial, there is no jurisdiction in the ICC. Country A would complain both to country B and demand of the ICC the immediate return of their citizen.

It is the first duty of a sovereign to protect their citizens at home or abroad. It their citizens are arrested abroad, the sovereign must assure that the citizens is accorded due process. Violation of fundamental prinicples of double jeopardy by the ICC is not due process and will provoke country A to protest, or more, depending.

You have no idea where sovereignty applies, do you?

It is territorial, not attached to each citizen, wheresoever he goes.

You're like a three year-old. I've told you this at least half a dozen times so far, but you just keep making the same false assertions over and over again.

Roland is doing you a favour by calling you a dilletante; I'd just call you a fool.

[Deathwalker]

It's a shame a country so nice could elect rulers so bad.

That the problem with free elections. We should have some type of test for people who want to run for office

[Roland]

"That the problem with free elections."

We're talking US elections here.

[Deathwalker]

AAHH So American elections arn't free elections. Wha are they then

[Roland]

Rigged and bought.

[Saint Marcus]

We're around 70 ratifications at the moment I think

76

Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Canada
Central African Republic
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cyprus
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Dominica
Ecuador
Egypt
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Lesotho
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic
Mali
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Mongolia
Namibia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
San Marino
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of

[rah]

Geeze, the axis of evil keeps getting bigger

RAH

[Saint Marcus]

[Roland]

Next dubya will tell us that Iran, Iraq and North Korea are stealth ratifiers of the ICC.... their absence in that ratification list is suspicious, is it not ?

[Ned]

Roland, I think you are mixing concepts. "Sovereignty" is primarily territorial. However, the fate of one's citizen's abroad is still a major concern of a state. For, example, we declared war on Germany because of this in WWI.

I have consistently been saying that the US would protect its citizens abroad. You have been saying we have no right to do this. But, history tells us a different story.

As for you KH, you are the consummate jerk.

[Roland]

That this was behind your entry in WW I is a myth. But apart from that:

Differentiate between prescriptive reach and sanction/enforcement reach of a norm.

Sanction is only in the territory of a state. But a state can make its laws prescriptive for events outside that have a connection with that state, or are under universal jurisdiction like genocide.

So a US citizen suspected of such a crime can be arrested in say germany. He can even be arrested in Germany for a crime against a german citizen in the US, although for some this is a disputed borderline case.

In those cases of jurisdiction accepted by international law, the citizenship country is limited to consular protection. This entails some minimum standards, but the peculiar US version of douple jeopardy is not among them. Trial by jury is not among them.

The US has no right whatsoever and in this case also no means to "protect" its citizens from the legitimate jurisdiction of another sovereign state, whether this state exercises it directly or through an international body upon which it has transferred that sovereign right.

End of story.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
That this was behind your entry in WW I is a myth. But apart from that:

Differentiate between prescriptive reach and sanction/enforcement reach of a norm.

Sanction is only in the territory of a state. But a state can make its laws prescriptive for events outside that have a connection with that state, or are under universal jurisdiction like genocide.

So a US citizen suspected of such a crime can be arrested in say germany. He can even be arrested in Germany for a crime against a german citizen in the US, although for some this is a disputed borderline case.

In those cases of jurisdiction accepted by international law, the citizenship country is limited to consular protection. This entails some minimum standards, but the peculiar US version of douple jeopardy is not among them. Trial by jury is not among them.

The US has no right whatsoever and in this case also no means to "protect" its citizens from the legitimate jurisdiction of another sovereign state, whether this state exercises it directly or through an international body upon which it has transferred that sovereign right.

End of story.

Think, though for a moment. The Euro's are consistently not cooperating with the US in prosecuting criminals becuase we have the death penalty. You particularly protest if the person being "executed" is a citizen of a European country.

Roland, we are listening and taking you seriously on this issue.

If an American is being held or punished unfairly abroad, even our president will intervene. There is a famous incident a few years ago about a teen being caned in Singapore.

(This may be a little off-thread, but what is this "myth" about WWI?)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
The US has no right whatsoever and in this case also no means to "protect" its citizens from the legitimate jurisdiction of another sovereign state, whether this state exercises it directly or through an international body upon which it has transferred that sovereign right.

Does that mean that we can take France and Germany before the World Court for interfering with a lawful prosecution?