Talk:United States and the International Criminal Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: User:AndrewRT User:Nightstallion

[edit] Grossly POV

The article is littered with POV statements, such as "One might think of the role the U.S. administration or U.S. citizens have played in conflicts around the world in the past,.." user:Pzg Ratzinger

[edit] "article 98" agreements

I might be wrong, but I wonder whether the term "article 98 agreements" can be considered NPOV. After all, it seems to reflect the belief that the bilateral agreements signed by the USA are actually compatible with article 98 of the Statute of the ICC, but that is only the US Government's point of view, and there are some pretty strong arguments against that interpretation. Amnesty International calls them "impunity agreements", but then again of course Amnesty doesn't really aim at being NPOV. So, should the term be changed, and how?

SFinamore 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to call them impunity agreements! I agree though that Article 98 is POV because it infers that they are consistent with the statute which plenty of people contest. I've only ever heard them being called Article 98 or Impunity Agreements - not much middle ground to go on. Perhaps something like "No-surrender" agreements? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"no-surrender" agreements sounds ok, but I'm not able to tell whether that's technically correct. Maybe they could just be called "bilateral agreements", and the content of these agreements could be made clear by the context. SFinamore 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obama

At least one other Democratic Senator and 2008 Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, promoted resigning the treaty prior to his decision to seek the Presidency. ^[1]

I'm sorry but I don't think this is a valid source per WP:RS. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was meant just as a placeholder, while I was looking for a published secondary source. However, I've been unable to find one. Will drop reference and tag for fact check, and will just drop entire statement if it's not corroborated within a few days. MrZaius^talk 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)