Talk:International Criminal Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article International Criminal Court has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Criminal Court article.
Article policies
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User:Nightstallion
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
Archive (up to June 2005)
Archive2 (June 2005 to May 2007)
Archive3 (May to November 2007)


Contents

[edit] Fairness

This article contains the following criticism:

"Critics of the Court argue that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”.[38] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice"

I am fine with this criticism being included, but how about putting in the counter points?

According to Human Rights Watch:

"Many safeguards exist in the ICC treaty to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. For example, all indictments will require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges, which will examine the evidence supporting the indictment before issuing it. The accused and any concerned countries will have an opportunity to challenge the indictment during confirmation hearings before the Pre-Trial Chamber. In addition, any investigation initiated by the prosecutor will first have to be approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

Prosecutors and judges all undergo rigorous scrutiny before they are elected and appointed to the court. The treaty establishes strict criteria for the selection of the prosecutor and the judges, requiring experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond reproach. They are prohibited from any activity during their term in office that might jeopardize their independence, and can be excused from particular cases if there is any question of partiality. Ultimately, in the unlikely event that they abuse their powers, they can be impeached."

http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/qna.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.133.192 (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the article getting too long winded with opinions and counteropinions. I think including the whole quote would be excessive. Although entirely correct factually, HRW's point should be considered in light of the fact that all the the people mentioned are "court people" - there are no external controls. (well there are actually, the ASP, but HRW doesn't mention them) I guess this is more what HK was getting at. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This criticism is a "significant-minority view": it's an argument that's mostly made by right-wing groups in the United States, and it's not taken very seriously in the peer-reviewed literature or outside the US. Per WP:NPOV, if we present a significant-minority view (and I think we must since it's a common criticism, albeit a dubious one), we should give at least as much prominence to the majority view. When I get the chance, I'll add some stuff about the Assembly of States Parties and the mechanisms by which the prosecutor and judges can be held accountable (unless someone else gets there before me).
Per WP:NPOV, I'm inclined to delete Kissinger's claim that the Prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”, since this is a "tiny-minority view". What think ye? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. What do y'all think? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source for the tiny minority hypothesis?
The majority of the world's population have decided to live without the ICC. Are these people a "tiny-minority"? Why have they declined the ICC? Kissinger speaks in part for this "tiny-minority. Raggz (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, even if a majority of the world's population passionately hates the ICC, that doesn't mean every conceivable criticism of the ICC is significant. You're simply wrong to suggest that the majority of the world's population thinks the Prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”. The only person saying this is Henry Kissinger. That makes it a "tiny-minority view".
If you are correct that the majority of the world thinks the Prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”, you should have no problem finding someone who agrees with Kissinger on this. I asked you to do this last June, but you haven't done so. If you can find any evidence that India or China thinks the Prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”, feel free to add it to the article. Otherwise, it's absurd to suggest that the majority of the world's population agrees with Henry Kissinger. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICC effectivness to date

I added this new section as the Reader should be able to access the degree of ICC effectiveness. Please edit in additional appropriate effectiveness information, as I am not an expert on this subject. Raggz (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, this entire section is original research you've added to the article in a blatant attempt to paint the court in a negative light. You've made no effort to present the Court's achievements to date, and we both know you have no intention of ever adding anything positive about the ICC to this section (or to any Wikipedia article).
If you want to create a section called "ICC effectiveness to date", you'll have to find a reliable source that analyses the Court's effectiveness to date. You can't just mine the internet for quotes that suit your POV and then present your own analysis suggesting the Court has been ineffective. And you have no business telling readers what you think the "primary limitation for ICC effectiveness" is.
(By the way, the purpose of the ICC is to deter serious crimes. The measure of the Court's effectiveness will be the degree to which those crimes are deterred. Most analysts think it will be years before we can gauge the Court's success as a deterrent. It's certainly premature to suggest that it's ineffective before the first trial has even started.)
Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What I have added is mostly primary source material, a direct quote about what the ICC says about itself. I suppose that I will accept your point, I see the validity. I suppose a secondary or tertiary source would be better. It is true that I have mostly worked on criticisms, because these were the weakest area. Would you like me to add material about the accomplishments? Fine. Raggz (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq

I'm reverting this edit, which transformed the section on Iraq from a one-paragraph summary to a series of random quotes from the Prosecutor's letter.

First of all, I think a concise summary is much easier for the reader to understand than a series of quotes.

Second, it makes no sense for us to go into so much detail about Iraq, when ICC hasn't even opened an investigation into the situation there. I don't understand why we should be giving more space to Iraq than we do to Darfur or any of the other situations which the Prosecutor has actually investigated. Moreover, this article clearly links to both The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the prosecutor's letter. Any readers who are interested in long, direct quotes from the prosecutor's analysis are capable of clicking the links and reading it for themselves.

Thirdly, by taking quotes out of context, this section distorts the Prosecutor's conclusions. For example, under the heading "Allegations concerning War Crimes", the Prosecutor is quoted as saying that "the available information did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed". However, if you read the source (PDF), it's clear that this quote referred specifically to the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks, not to war crimes in general. (In fact the Prosecutor concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes had been committed.)

Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minority of population

The article on membership states:

"As of February 2008, 106 countries have ratified or acceded to the Court .... However, these countries account for a minority of the world's population"

Very interesting point, and I would argue highly relevant. A cursory look at th list would confirm that only a minority of the world's population are covered. My question: if I got the list of countries' populations, say from List of countries by population and worked out the proportion of the world's population covered by the court, would that be Wikipedia:Original Research? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never been comfortable with our statement that "these countries account for a minority of the world's population".
It's not clear to me why the percentage of the world's population who live in states parties is important. It seems to me that this is an attempt to suggest something about the court's jurisdiction, or perhaps about the level of international support for the court, which I think is highly problematic. More to the point, as best I can remember, none of the reliable sources I've read has ever raised this as an issue.
Can we make a deal? If we can find a reliable, published source that thinks this fact is important, I won't object to its inclusion. (And I have no problem with your proposal to work out the percentage: my understanding is that nothing in WP:NOR prohibits straightforward arithmetic.)
On the other hand, if none of the hundreds of reliable sources that have written about the ratification status of the Rome Statute seem to think that the percentage of the world's population that live in states parties is an important figure, I'd argue that we have no business talking about it. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added one in, which is actually from a court supporter in an article entitled "The International Criminal Court at Work: Challenges and Successes in the Fight against Impunity". AndrewRT(Talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I had in mind by a reliable, published source! I don't want to move the goalposts on you, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a published article by an international lawyer or an academic who thinks the proportion of the world's population living in states parties is an important figure, and who explains why this is so. As I said, there have been hundreds of articles about universality, the ratification status of the treaty, etc. so this shouldn't be difficult. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Facts in wikipedia only have to be verifiable, by a reliable source. The statement as written does not require any further validation. The statement is obviously true based on the other cited sources (such as the list of coutries) and is obviously important (and if you doubt that I've even given you a source saying so).AndrewRT(Talk) 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The statement's obviously true, but it's not "obviously important", unless I'm missing something obvious.
The number of states that have ratified the Rome Statute is obviously important. So is the number of states that have vocally objected to the statute. And the fact that several major powers (like China and the US) are opposed to the court. And the fact that many important situations (like the Iraq war) fall outside the court's jurisdiction. These are important facts, every good overview of the court mentions them, and every expert agrees that they're important. In contrast, as best I can tell, the experts don't think it's important what percentage of the world's population lives in states parties. Legally, morally, politically, it doesn't matter one jot. At best, it's just trivia.
At worst, however, it invites readers to draw inaccurate conclusions about the court. In fact, the statement was originally added to the article by an editor advancing a particular POV, and it's been quoted on this talk page as evidence that the majority of the world's population opposes the ICC.[1] I think the very real danger of misleading our readers outweighs whatever minor benefit there might be in including this factoid.
If we must keep it, can we at least move it to the states parties article, and add a new paragraph about the quest for universal ratification so readers can understand the context? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also section

The See also section consists of six seemingly random entries, most of which are already linked in the footers at the bottom of the article.[2] Sure, some people who read the ICC article will also be interested in command responsibility and the World Federalist Movement, but I don't see why we're singling out these articles as if they're somehow more relevant than the thousands of other Wikipedia articles about criminal law, human rights, international relations, etc.

I'm removing the section, as I don't think it's of any use to the reader. The categories and navigational templates are just fine. If someone wants to restore this section, can we at least keep it focused on topics that are of particular interest to readers of the ICC article, and not just a random selection of articles that are related to international law, world government, or whatever? Cheers, Polemarchus (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)