Talk:International Criminal Court/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Who Speaks for the US?

Amassador John Boulton articulated the position of the US Government on the ICC, and this is now posted. [1]Currently Human Rights Watch speaks to the US constitutionality of the ICC, and it cites only an advocacy POV for support. Why have Human Rights Watch express a POV?

The US Government speaks to the constitutionality of the ICC. Any opinions that oppose the official view of the government should cite at minimum a US court decision or other official source, not a political advocacy document that is intended to express a single POV. [2]

The actual position of the US Government on the ICC is the actual position of the US Government, we should include only official sources to express the POV of the US Government. Human Rights Watch may not contradict it in regard to what it's positions are. Raggz 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Prosecutor's consideration of War crimes in connection with invasion of Iraq

This part of the article is a version of text I also included in War crimes article. It expands on the previously existing piece in this article which was entitled "alleged British war crimes in Iraq". I retained the link to the report in the the Guardian which set out some of the details of those complaints. It is not as yet clear whether the Prosecutor's decision disposes of all of the complaints mentioned in that article, though it seems likely that it purports to. Nonetheless, it should be noted that in relation to all of his findings, (except the one dealing with the "aggression"), he stated in his decision letter that he will reopen his investigation if further facts or information come to light. Re-opening such investigations would not amount to breaching the principle of Ne bis in idem [known as Double jeopardy in the United States, and Autrefois acquit in other Common Law systems], since the prosecutors conclusions here relate to a preliminary investigation, with a view to deciding whether to bring a complaint to the Court to ask for the Court's authority to initiate an investigation.

I toyed with the idea of moving the section on "Cases before the Court" to the end of the article since that section seems concerned with current events/cases, which in the article come before some of the pretty basic information about the background to the Courts establishment, and the basic principles concerning its jurisdiction. Arguably the latter should be set out prior to the any section dealing with cases dealt by the Court. However, it is arguable that the newsworthy nature of "current cases" mean that they should come before basic info on the Court's jurisdiction etc. So I was in two minds, and therefore not sure whether it would be appropriate to make such a change. What do other editors think? Diranh 24Feb06

Thanks for this excellent expansion. I've heard so many times people spouting off about teh ICC trying troops over the invasion of Iraq and it's a great source here to shine light on the matter. All the information is good stuff and I want to keep it, but I think it makes the article too long at the moment; I suggest making a separate article on "the ICC and the 2003 invasion of Iraq" with a summary here - do you agree? AndrewRT 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I completely agree Andrew. I have attempted a summary, and created the new page as suggested The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It may be that the summary could do with further pruning.Diranh 25Feb06

Move most of the US objections

I would like to see most of the stuff about the US objections moved to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

I would like to see some (but not all) info retained here as it relates to the pros and cons of the court itself. AndrewRT 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


For what it is worth, i think think the US related material has come to dominate the article, and needs a place of its own. I think it would be better if that material was radically cut down. In addition, as it stands, the effort to report the US case in a non POV manner arguably renders the effect of the article to be somewhat anti the ICC. Perhaps a separate article on the US objections, and an acount of the detail of how it has acted to protect its position would be preferable. As part of the such an article it would be possible to provide information on the contrary view amongst scholars of international law concerning the US reading of the notion of universal sovereignty, and the status of the court. Madeline Morris'analysis as set out in High crimes and misconceptions: the ICC and non-party states, Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter 2001 vol. 64 no. 1, is not accepted by many scholars. Diranh28 March 2006 2006

I disagree

The US objections are central to this page and should not be moved.

The US objections represent a fundamental issue not addressed. Different people in different nations have different legal human rights. All have those guaranteed by the UN Charter, but some (including those in the US) legally have greater human rights than do most. The government of the US cannot constitutionally enter into any treaty that diminishes the legal human rights of her citizens at any trial. If the Senate were to do so, the Supreme Court would strike the treaty on constitutional grounds. An American tried before the ICC is denied any form of appeal, and this court operates without any formal judicial peer-review. For many similar reasons, the greater legal human rights of US citizens preclude US participation with the ICC. The human rights guaranteed by the ICC need to US standards, or higher, otherwise the US Government lacks the constitutional authority to enter into any ICC treaty. An increase in human rights for all would be a good thing?


There are many people for whom the human rights guaranteed by the UN Charter are merely theoretical. Their governments offer them greatly reduced legal access to human rights. Such Nations chose to deny the ICC any jurisdiction.


The US objections dominate this discussion because the issue of dissimilar human rights in each nation is the primary obstacle to expansion of ICC jurisdiction. ^^^^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Belgian war crimes law

I'm removing this paragraph:

In April of 2003, Belgian attorney Jan Fermon filed suit to bring US General Tommy Franks to trial in front of the ICC for "war crimes" which he alleges the general committed during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The reason is that the Jan Fermon case was brought under Belgium's own war crimes laws, and has nothing to do with the ICC. This particular Belgian law (which has since been repealed) is frequently confused with the ICC, but the two have nothing to do with each other. See [1] for more details. --Mprudhom 17:14, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

US exemption

The paragraph on US objections can be further enlightened by stating the fact that the US even adopted a law, by some called the 'The Hague invasion act', which states that in case of any US citizen being under trial in the ICC, the US has a possible action to use force to 'free' this US citizen. - Regards, user Bob.v.R, the Netherlands

Okay, I see that the 'The Hague invasion act' is mentioned already. However, now I would like to suggest that the articles on US objections are bundled together, and not have them scattered like they are now. - Regards, Bob.v.R

I think in this sentence, the last part should be deleted:

"A resolution to exempt citizens of the U.S. from jurisdiction of the court was renewed in 2003 by Resolution 1487, but when after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq it became clear that there was no majority for it, the US withdrew its second proposed renewal of the resolution ****that would have led to a permanent right for exemption by customary law.****"

Customary international law does not develop in two or three years and by means of two or three resolutions of the security council; it takes a lot more.

This section seems to focus heavily on the reasons why US objections are unfounded. Does anyone else see that? If I am right, the whole section needs to be re-written so as to adopt a more neutral stance. -Kp

I agree. I deleted several aspects of this section and added a link to a more detailed disscussion on the US posistion. I also deleted several sentences that were inncorect or unecessary.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I cannot believe the whole section about the US exemption that was only abolished after Abu Ghraib was deleted. Shame on you. Añoranza 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Status of US signature of ICC statute

I modified this sentence "Treaties not ratified by the United States Senate have no legal standing in the U.S. unless and until that ratification takes place."

Reasons for my modifications:

  • technically speaking, it is possible for a treaty not ratified by the US Senate to have legal standing under US law. An "executive agreement" (ratified by the President but not the Senate) can have legal effect under US domestic law through normal legislation passed by both Houses of Congress enforcing it. Under the terminology of US constitutional law, such an agreement is not a "treaty", but an "executive agreement" -- but under international law they are both treaties, this distinction being a purely US domestic distinction.
  • "have no legal standing in the U.S." is unclear. According to the Vienna Convention, the signature of a treaty by a state creates some legal obligations for the state, although these legal obligations are different from those created by ratification. (Ratification creates obligations to comply with the treaty's terms, whereas signature only creates obligations not to "defeat the object and purpose of the treaty" (article 18).) So, as a matter of international law, treaties not ratified by the United States still create legal obligations for the United States. But as a matter of US domestic law, no obligations are created. I changed the text to clarify the fact that the "no legal standing" means no legal effect under US domestic law, not no legal effect under international law.

(In fact, the mere signature of a treaty, without ratification, could influence in some limited circumstances domestic law -- e.g. it may be given some consideration in the interpretation of legislation, or in deciding cases where there is no clear domestic legislation or legal precedents.)

--Samuel

How could any signature offered without the authority of the government be binding?Raggz 09:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. Something that creates an obligation under international law, but creates no obligation under domestic law, as a practical matter creates no obligation. But, even under a theoretical legal framework, if the world is on notice that the "supreme law" of a country says that no obligation is entered into if not ratified in X,Y,Z fashion, then no obligation is created without such ratification. After all, you have to have legal authority to enter into any agreement, and the President of the United States, on his own, does not in this case. (Which, incidentally, brings up the very interesting case of executive agreements. It is entirely unclear whether the president has the legal authority to enter into such agreements if they do, indeed, create international legal obligations for the United States. To get around this legal issue, the question is simply not asked.) Epstein's Mother 12:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What we are discussing are signatures offered on behalf of the US Government by elected officers who are known by all to lack the authority to bind the US to any treaty. Such signatures were offered by Al Gore at Kyoto and by Clinton on the ICC, but these signatures clearly lacked authority. Legally, these signatures were equivalent to forged signatures.

No executive order may conflict with an actual law, if it does it is automatically nullified (Presidents may not pass laws). No executive order can serve as a treaty, in other words no executive order may bind the Government of the US as a treaty would.

The example above includes a legislative act, so even without an executive order it is enforcible internally.

To bind the US internationally, this is what a treaty does. Any action so binding the US must meet the constitutional requirements for any treaty.

"... such an agreement is not a "treaty", but an "executive agreement" -- but under international law they are both treaties, this distinction being a purely US domestic distinction." Not true. No treaty is binding upon the US unless it was entered into with the authority of the US Government. No federal officer or agency may do so without the formal consent of the Senate. Raggz 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

US again

There doesn't seem to be any sort of a critisism of the US POV on this court -- it was quite a contraversial topic, yet this article seems to read like a USAF press-release. Have I just come at a bad time, or is the article usually like this? Ojw 21:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It starts out decently, and I was actually enjoying reading it, but about halfway in it changed into a very odd mixture of anti-USA and pro-nationalist polemic in the form of weasel terms alongside some decidedly pro-USA POV bits that were jarring to read in the context of the rest. I made some edits to it, but it needs a heavy hand or three in making it NPOV and balanced in its content. I am done with it, though- too aggravating, and it is not my usual fare here at Wikipedia, so best if I leave it alone now. I am sure there are better editors here for international law compared to my own meagre knowledge.
-P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It is too pro-US. However, I don't see myself as the one to NPOV it. Jimp 10Oct05
The way it seemed to me, there seemed to be paragraphs thrown into the text that seemed to argue a point rather than relate criticism, probably additions attempted to balance the text out, but it doesn't end up looking very good. Weasel terms abound on both sides. Obviously needs a lot of NPOV editing, but I doubt I'm the right person for the job, either. :) -- MMad (who forgot to log in)

The US POV is irrelevant really, the ICC has no jurisdiction over US citizens and never will have this. The only time that there is relevance to the US in regard to this topic is when (1) the United Nations is involved, because the US is a member of the UN - or (2) the greater human rights guaranteed within the US are discussed.

The proper way to address this question is to delete irrelevant content that discuss the pro or anti US POV in any other context, unless the relevance exists. There probably are other legitimate reasons to invoke POV issues, but if invoked, their relevance should be supported. Raggz 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

number of article 98 agreements

In the article: As of October 2005, the following 100 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICC Statute: [3]

By June 2005 around 100 states had signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S., including at least seven of them that signed the agreement secretly.

Eh? Does that make sense? So every country that signed the statue also signed the bilateral ammendment?? Does anyone understand the numbers? I'm pretty sure that my conclusion is wrong... - Gerrit (2/11/2005)

No, most of the European nations, and a number of American nations, haven't signed the agreement. Rsynnott 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You are generally right - Many coutries are likely negotiating opt-outs without ratification to gain US "carrots".


I've added a map of the offending countries. - (IdiotSavant 04:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

US objection - jury

I've heard US objectors cite the fact that the ICC doesn't allow for jury trials and hence (in their minds) breaches US citizens' constitutional rights.

Should this be added? Is this an important enough point or is it just an excuse? AndrewRT 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard this argument before but it does make sense (perhaps the only real legal argument as opposed to political ones). Although the U.S. has previously approved of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the Nüremberg trials which were not jury trials. If we can cite sources for this I think it should be added. --Bjarki 21:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Citizens of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Germany may legally be tried by judges but American citizens may not be. Americans have civil rights that prohibit this, the others do not. International law is in practice a blend of national and international law, this was especially true for Nuremburg.

The fundamental human rights of Americans are not "in their minds - but are guaranteed by the US Constitution. The ICC must recognize the fundamental human rights of Americans if it is to ever have jurisdiction over Americans.

United States Constitution - Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury (of peers), guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.

The greater legal and fundamental human rights of US citizens deserves a section, because presently the ICC neither recognizes these nor would it accomodate these. Raggz 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just on pt of terminology and classification. The right to "trial by jury" is not a Human Right, in the strict sense of the term. It is a constitutional right in the same way as the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, rather than a human right. The Human Right in question is the right to a fair trial, as set out in the ICCPR, the ECHR, and the AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN none of which provide that the right to a fair trial necessarily encompasses or requires trial by jury. The latter is primarily an incident of the Anglo-American tradition, though there are other jurisdictions where serious criminal matters must be tried by a Jury. Nonetheless, I think explaining the US objection on this point is a relevant matter to explain, as part of a section setting out the reasons for the US objections to the ICC. However unless the article is to have a US POV feel, which I think we ought to avoid, the right to trial by jury ought not to be represented as a "Human Right".Diranh 15:51, 15 May 2007 (GMT+1)

US objections

Like the recently added bits about the reasons for US opposition. Suggest should also refer to allegations of historic war crimes by CIA-backed allies e.g. Pinochet. AndrewRT 12:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but this would mean a new paragraph. Suppose it would have to discuss the School of the Americas, Operation Condor, et cetera. Let's have suggestions here before introducing it.--Nomen Nescio 11:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It would also be highly relevant to refer to the increasingly frequent allegations of war crimes by the US military in Iraq. (Barend 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Added some policies from the past which today would constitute grounds for prosecution by the ICC.--Nomen Nescio 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Allegations are generally irrelevant, convictions are not. A very high standard should be used for mere allegations unless (1) they are raised by the UN Security Council or (2) appear before the ICC. Raggz 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Raggz 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From the objections section

I cut the following from the article as I don't think it belongs in the objections section:

Until the past two centuries, transportation and communication over great distances was difficult, and so governing over distances was also difficult. But now, corporations act internationally, governments act internationally in furtherance of their military and political goals, diseases spread internationally, terrorism occurs in complete disregard to national borders, and refugees spread across national borders from conflicts in such a way that no armed conflict can safely be ignored by the international community. The main institution that affects the lives of people and protects them, but does not do so internationally, is the law. If all the activities which are governed by laws occur on an international stage, the law must also act on an international stage.

While some may have qualms about present-day arrangements for the Court with certain States Parties lacking credibility given their own level of political and legal development or due to other circumstantial factors, in cases involving egregious crimes of a local majority individual against a foreign (or minority) individual, the principle that those with some distance from a controversy at hand (in this case, representatives from foreign countries who would not be as likely to align themselves with one side or another) are often, in aggregate, more capable of being objective is well-recognized in legal and ethical systems around the world.

Just as neighbors are not expected to be reliable in adjudicating serious conflicts, especially where they are themselves concerned parties, assuming there is an adequately constituted police force at hand, so too is it seen that justice (or injustice) is not the exclusive property of one nation or its people.

While this may all be true and I agree with it personally, the tone isn't very NPOV. But perhaps something of use can be extracted from it. --Bjarki 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

By June 2005 around 100 states had signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S., including at least seven of them that signed the agreement secretly. Many of these agreements are with non-States Parties to the Court. 58 of the 100 countries have not signed these bilateral agreements, despite U.S. pressure. Now have 100 signed or not? Get-back-world-respect 19:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the latter "signed" is supposed to be "ratified" instead? --Bjarki 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

Request article on internationnal criminal court procedures

Alleged Iranian incitement to genocide

Deleted, not worth mentioning. The Prosecutor didn't mention it in his recent communication. Otto ter Haar 07:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The case has only just been filed, hence why the OTP wouldn't mention it. Although I originally inserted the section I won't revert because I'd like to do a longer article on all potential cases, including this one.
As I side note, I think it's important to include all cases that WONT be taken up by the prosecutor (and why as well) as well as those that will. There's so much misunderstanding of the jurisdiction of the ICC I think this will increase understanding. AndrewRT 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

US Opposition / ICC incompatible with U.S. Constitution

Many countries amended their constitutions when ratifying the ICC - why is this a big deal for the US any more than any other country? AndrewRT 12:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This answer is correct to the best of my knowledge: Because the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States, and establishes the US Supreme Court as the highest court with legal jurisdiction over citizens and laws of the united states. To allow the ICC control (even in limited ways) over the laws of the US would be wholly incompatible with the US constitution, beyond the remedy of an ammendment (which would be highly unlikely to pass, in any event). --ABQCat 08:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
But still, why can't the Constitution be amended, just as other countries have done? Or is changing the Constitution by itself unconstitutional?Holland Nomen Nescio 10:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, the constitution could be modified through amendment, however any such amendment would be incompatible with the constitution in whole, and would be highly unlikely to ever receive a vote in the congress, and would almost certainly never receive ratification by the state legislatures. --ABQCat 04:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
(1) the US Constitution is very hard to amend. Either you have to call a Constitutional Convention (very, very rare) or else you need a vote of 2/3 of both houses of congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states, usually within a certain time period. Very very difficult; (2) why would the U.S. want to amend the Constitution for the ICC? A good chunk of the world is itching to bring cases against the US in it. Without so much of the world holding a grudge against the US, even if you think that is justified, how much of a glutton for punishment do you really expect the US to be? -- Cecropia 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Most countries make it difficult to amend their constitutions - that's kind of the point of constitutions. Many require referenda (which, for example, Ireland did to ratify the ICC) and many others (e.g. Germany) require state ratification. The difficulty of amending a constitution is not, in itself, an argument against it. If Americans wanted to amend the constitution and ratify the ICC they could.
I must challenge the statement "A good chunk of the world is itching to bring cases against the US in it". Perhaps you should look at The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and have a look at how easily the court dismissed claims about British war crimes in Iraq. Most ICC cases are against African warlords, not American servicemen, whatever your the right wing propaganda says.AndrewRT 10:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I never said that amending the US Constitution is a prime reason for the US not accepting the ICC. The difficulty of amending the US Constitution is an issue which stands on its own. My argument is that it is not in the US interest, both on practical and sovereignty issues, to accept the ICC. My opinions are my own, and I resent your ad hominem comment about my "right wing propaganda," my issues with the ICC come from my own knowledge of US law, the US Constitution, and International Law, a subject which I needed to study as result of my role as a military instructor. Where do you get your knowledge? Should I respond to you that your opinions are from what your left-wing propoganda says? -- Cecropia 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I support the comment that impossible is not an accurate description of why the US cannot subscribe to the ICC. Furthermore, although it might seem "A good chunk of the world is itching to bring cases against the US in it," this conveniently fails to address the numerous torture and possible war crimes incidents that have been happening for which no high-ranking US official has been held accountable. This failure to prosecute high-ranking officials under the command responsibility, by any government, is exactly the raison d'etre of this court and surely makes the Bush administration at risk for legal challenges, which is also a very good argument for not signing to the ICC.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The argument most often heard in the US for non-ratification is that our soldiers, acting in peacekeeping roles, may be charged or held as a leverage position against the president. Separate from the issue of ongoing Iraq problems, this argument has been around since before 2003. I can't state with any certainty about the validity of the argument, I just know it's the one I hear most often presented. --ABQCat 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of that rationale (apparently British, Dutch, Canadian, et cetera troops are not at risk). Even if it were a authentic concern, it does not exclude the possibility that by not subscribing US officials guilty of war crimes (isn't there a inquiry into possible misconduct by US military started this week?) are protected from prosecution as I suggested before.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
After hearing all the arguments, I still cannot see why the fact that ICC ratification would require an amendment to the US constitution is a reason for the US to oppose the ICC. If no-one can provide a reason I would like to delete this section. AndrewRT 10:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No valid argument has been advanced to support that assertion. In the absence of any source substantiating that claim I think it does not belong in the article.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you delightful anti-Americans. You feel you have the right to specify a sovereign nation's justification in rejecting a treaty because you see no justification. Your attitudes demonstrate why the US should never expand the power of international or supranational bodies over its sovereignty. -- Cecropia 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out a logical fallacy is not the same as being anti-american. On what grounds can other countries amend their constitution but the US not? That has not been answered, so it is a case of not wanting to change. This is a political but no legal argument, therefore it should not be in the article. Provide a source to substantiate the claim amendment is impossible, or this has to be deleted.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Where has the claim been made that "amendment is impossible"? Does your home nation operate under a Constitution? -- Cecropia 08:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion that it too difficult to change the Constitution is used to explain the legal arguments for opposing the ICC. Since you agree that amendment is possible there exists no legal argument (the US Constitution itself) to oppose the court.Holland Nomen Nescio 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You're begging the question. If provisions of the ICC contravene the U.S. Constitution, that is a legal argument. That's why I asked you if your home nation operates under a Constitution. The Constitution of the U.S. is not an ephermeral document. As currently constituted, the ICC would be a breach of the U.S. Constitution, plain and simple. To say you can change the Constitution is not meaningful. The U.S. Constitution also prohibits slavery (except for those convicted of a crime). Now suppose one of our large megastore chains decided that it would be much more economical to enslave rather than hire their employees, and they managed to pay off Congress to pass such a law. It would be struck down as unconstitutiona. But the Constitutional could be amended to allow businesses to enslave people. If they fail to amend the Constitution to do that, would you then claim that the decision not to allow people to be enslaved is simply political? -- Cecropia 23:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you are missing the point. 1 If at this point it is against the Constitution then change it. 2 Other countries have amended their constitution in order to sign. 3 Since no legal argument has been advanced why the US can NOT amend its constitution we can only conclude no legal explanation exists for opposing the ICC.Holland Nomen Nescio 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you are missing the point. I see you are from the Netherlands where, according to the article on the Constitution of the Netherlands that document is neither held as in the same regard as the U.S. Constitution: "Dutch judges may not test the validity of other laws against the constitution. As a consequence, The Netherlands do not have a Constitutional Court"; and where treaties may overrule all domestic law: "International treaties on the other hand may overrule Dutch law, even the constitution, and judges are allowed in most cases to test laws against them." So what I hear you saying is that you neither respect the sovereignty nor the legal system of the United States and that since you, personally, are in favor of the ICC, you believe that it is a trivial matter to abrogate the supreme law of the U.S. so you can have the U.S. subject to the ICC. -- Cecropia 04:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
First, I fail to understand what my being Dutch has to do with the subject, other than being an ad hominem attack. Second, I appreciate the sensitive nature of the Constutution and feelings of sovereignty by US citizens. This however is not a legal argument but an emotional one (respect is not part of any law I know of). Furthermore, your assertion that changing the Constitution to support a Court of Justice for prosecuting war criminals is equal to allowing slavery is offensive, crude, unwarranted and a ridiculous comparison. But to addres your argument, yes prohibiting slavery, or anything else (drugs, torture, war of aggression), is a political thing. That's why politicians make the law and the police and courts uphold the law. At least that is how it is done in The Netherlands.Holland Nomen Nescio 12:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Nescio. Constitutions are not set in stone; they are documents that can, in principle, be changed, and so the United States could amend their constitution to comply with the Rome Statute. Austria has done it, and Austria *does* have a Constitutional Court which works pretty much the same way as the U.S. one does, so the situation is rather similar. ;) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
(Bring indent out) No human endeavor is "set in stone," even stones can be chipped away or blown up--ask the Taliban. Nescio, how can you call my comments in regard to Holland "ad hominem" when I make clear that you are coming from a much different Constiturional tradition than the U.S. and the concept of Constitutional Law does not have the same meaning for you. -- Cecropia 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You use my being Dutch as argument, since it is not relevant to whether or not the Constitution can be amended it is a logical fallacy.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I mention you're being Dutch to try to resolve in my mind your casual attitude toward the U.S. Constitution. But let me ask you a positive, rather than a negative question: Why do you think the U.S. should ratify the ICC? What do you think should be done if the U.S. doesn't wish to? -- Cecropia 16:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my answering your questions too. Personally, I think:

a) The world has seen a lot of tyrants getting away with very serious crimes like genocide, massacres and such like. National court systems are inherently unable to deal with these matters because tyrants have strong control over their domestic courts. I hope and believe that the ICC will result in more justice for the victims of these crimes. If the US were part of this process it would substantially improve the effectiveness of the court because: 1) the US would use its muscle to ensure indictees are caught and handed over; 2) US support would encourage other countries to join the court - at the moment some countries (like the Philippines) have not joined as a result of US pressure; 3) US participation would encourage the court to reform in ways that make it less corruptible and deliver better justice - many US criticisms are entirely valid and 4) US participation would prevent both american mercenaries and US government agents from committing or abetting war crimes themselves - and, yes, there have been numerous credible accusations linking the CIA to, for example Argentinian death squads under Pinochet in Chile or those of Suharto in Indonesia.

b) The US is entirely within it's moral and legal right as a country to decide not to join. Indeed they have done a tremendous amount to help the cause of accountability in this field without joining. However, if it doesn't join it should address the legal black hole at the moment which means that US mercenaries who, for example, go to Congo and commit war crimes there are not liable to prosecution under US law whereas if british or French or South African mercenaries did the same they would be under ICC implementation legislation. Why has Kissinger never been investigated for the crimes against humanity he has been implicated in during the South American dirty wars? Many in Europe are very cynical at these gaps in US justice. That's why Article 98 agreements are nicknamed impunity agreements.

c) If the US doesn't want to join, why dont they at least tone down their campaign against the act. Let others join, stop threatening them with sanctions and aid cut offs if they fail to toe your line on this one. And stop spreading misinformation about the court that's used by detractors around to world to justify not signing up.

d) What should be done by the world against America? I don't think anything should be done - just keep talking to them about why we are supporting it, encourage them to pass their own implementing legislation and try to persudae them to drop their campaign against the court. Hold firm in our support and hopefully america will come round to the idea - eventually - like they did with the League of Nations.

Well that's my two-penny worth. AndrewRT 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if the US does not wish to join it is free to do so. Contrary to this administration's policies I accept that people differ in their view of the world and believe that should be respected. As to the previous arguments, it sounds similar to what I would say, therefore I will not repeat the explanation. But some arguments are missing.
  • 1 We see several ad hoc tribunals being implemented to address crimes against humanity. Imagine the logistical and economic more efficient option of creating one court to do the same. It would save time, energy and money if we did not have to reinvent the wheel time and time again.
  • 2 The efficacy of the court increases with the number of countries participating. If everything goes as planned it guarantees no dictator can escape prosecution for his crimes.
  • 3 PR-wise the current perceived policies in the war on terror -repeated allegations of prisoner abuse, indiscriminate killings of civilians, suggestions of a war of aggression- amid overt attempts to circumvent a Court designed to prosecute war criminals, is not helping the US to maintain their status as safeguard for democracy and human rights.Holland Nomen Nescio 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to blow off most of the interesting points you and Andrew are making, but I will point to the inherent problem expressed in Andrews's post: "Why has Kissinger never been investigated for the crimes against humanity he has been implicated in during the South American dirty wars?" This is far afield of "U.S. Mercenaries" and foreshadows the political prosecutions the ICC would be involved in. We already hav4e the experience of Belgium's universal jurisdiction experiment, in which complaints were made against George H.W. Bush, Colin Powell and many others. The ICC would deteriorate into a circus. I can just see the Court ordering the American military to arrest President Bush. -- Cecropia 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that proposals to amend the US Constitution to REDUCE human rights would never pass. You use examples of nations that amended their constitutions to INCREASE human rights? If not, how did they persuade those people to give up their human rights in exchange for ICC jurisdiction? Perhaps human rights are just more valued by Americans? I don't know of your examples who gave up their rights, and look forward to learning why?Raggz 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I think I owe Cecropia an apology for one of the comments I posted above. I put a comment talking about "your right wing propaganda" which was taken to mean that I was describing his views as right wing propaganda. I meant "your" in the sense of your country, as I assumed that he was American, and I was talking about the right wing "propaganda" (in my POV) you hear from certain American commentators. I accept that this didn't come across well, and I apologise for this. AndrewRT 17:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded the entire section pulling out the substantive criticisms that the americans draw. I hope everyone's happy with it - apologies if I've missed anything out inadvertantly. I've included a reference to the US constitution as above. I accpt that I'm baised - being a campaigner for the court - so if anyone can help with improving NPOV i'd appreciate the input, although I've tried to be as NPOV as I could. AndrewRT 20:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

US Objections - new article?

Looking at the article now, I think that the section on US Objections makes this article too long. Would there be any objections to me creating a new article - possibly United States and the International Criminal Court - along the lines of the cases before the ICC section leaving a summary here and allowing links from other articles like Foreign relations of the United States and Foreign_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration? AndrewRT 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I object

The ICC article is about an emerging judicial system, and about it's struggle to be relevant. To move the discussion of the process of ICC emergence is to presume that the ICC has already attained wide jurisdiction, which it has not. When (and if) this occurs, at this point the problems the ICC curently faces will have passed. Presently the ICC faces credibility and jurisidictional challenges that should be addressed. These exisit, we need to address them. Raggz 09:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

U.S. attempts to undermine the ICC

The US claims that it is not trying to undermine the ICC, rather protecting its own interests as a non-state party. Is the heading title a bit POV? AndrewRT 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They are not mutually exclusive. The US certainly is protecting its interests, but in doing so it clearly undermines the ICC. By blackmailing countries into signing non-extradiction treaties it is certainly not helping the ICC.Holland Nomen Nescio 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point. However by saying they are "attempts to undermine" we are making an assertion that that undermining the ICC is the motive behind US actions. I would prefer something more neutral. AndrewRT 09:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Would "contravene" be a better word?--Looper5920 09:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am open to suggestions. At this moment I can't think of a way of presenting both positions within a succinct header.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How about his:

U.S. protectionism contravenes the ICC

Not perfect, but what do you think?Holland Nomen Nescio 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest US reactions to the court. This is neutral enough as a header and allows the article itself to discuss the motives AndrewRT 13:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this sounds more NPOV. At least better than what it says now.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your inputs. AndrewRT 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Reality Check

The position of the United States should be correctly stated. If incorrectly stated, it should be re-stated with the corrct citation. There is no need for any of us to edit the official postion of the US Government, nor to "spin" it. There is n obligation to correctly state this.

Does anyone have an actual reference where the US Government has taken any position other than to deny ICC juridiction over her own citizens? If such an oficial statement of the US Government actually exists, it is highly relevant to post it. Please consider that it is the duty of the United States Govrnment to protect all of her citizens from the jurisdiction of the ICC, because the ICC does not recognize the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans. So - who has a citation that the US opposes the trial of anyone but Americans by the ICC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Potential State Parties

Is there any value in having a brief discussion of potential state parties who are in the process of ratifying (perhaps as part of a new article Members of the International Criminal Court) I'm thinking of using information like this: [2] (Lebanon contemplates joining International Criminal Court) AndrewRT 14:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems a listing and status of the 39 members who have signed but not ratified might be appropriate for inclusion here. The article already discusses 40 & 41 and their unsigning (US & Israel). A separate article combining all signatories and their status would certainly be justified. Javadane 17:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I've eventually done it - State Parties of the International Criminal Court. Hope you all like it. How about taking out the list of countries from this article and just leaving the narrative and map? --AndrewRT 23:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

US objections

I don't think it is necessary to go into this amount of detail about US objections. This article is about the ICC, not US foreign policy. There is already an article United States and the International Criminal Court and all this new information should be incorporated in there.

Meanwhile this article should only retain a short paragraph summarising the main points. AndrewRT 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact there is no new material, it is old material that had been removed. The probability that a reader goes to a separate article about a country and the ICC is significantly lower than that this article is read. The Security Council resolutions regarding the US exemption are a special case, something without precedent, and they are important also as many people think that US citizens cannot be tried at the ICC, which is not true. Añoranza 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Argument for U.S. objections

Like all treaties, the ICC has its good points and its bad points. The article, aside from the "objections" sections from different countries, highlights little of the shortcomings of the International Criminal Court. The United States' objections to the ICC, however unfounded they may seem to some, are pertinent and relevant to the ICC itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The article doesn't have much about the good points or arguments in favour of the court either. This is an article about the ICC, not about US objections. I would like to limit the section length to a few paragraphs. I won't intervene now, but if it gets much bigger I will. There is no need to go into detail about something where there is already a more detailed article in existence. AndrewRT 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

victims participation

I added the section on victims participation since it was such an important issue at the Rome Conference. Forgot to sign in with my user name when I did it though, so only my IP address shows up... Constructive comments welcome.

Wl219 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Zimbabwe criticisms

I think these statements object more to the idea of a referral of Zimbabwe to the ICC rather than a fundamental isagreement with the ICC per se. Therefroe I would like to move to Cases before the International Criminal Court#Zimbabwe -AndrewRT - Talk 21:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available. This article has been tagged since August 2006.

Why is this article tagged? I though it was quite good (although I admit I'm biased as I've written a bit of it) I'm not sure what wants changing AndrewRT - Talk 15:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well no-one's replied so I guess it's ok to remove the tag! AndrewRT - Talk 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Its now got a citations tag, but I think they've all been provided now. Can I remove that one too? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, I tagged it for citations a couple of weeks ago. It's improved somewhat since then (largely thanks to you) but we still have some work to do. The Early development and Opposition to the ICC sections are terrible: there's a lot of unsourced nonsense like ‘opponents argue that giving even a temporary member of the Security Council the power to veto any objections of prosecutorial bias gave the ICC no accountability whatsoever’. I strongly suggest we keep the tag until these two sections are sorted.
(By the way, since there's a separate United States and the International Criminal Court article, I think we should cut the US opposition section down to one paragraph.) Sideshow Bob Roberts 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sideshow, thanks for getting back. I'll try to look into these sections as you mentioned. On your specific point about objections to the role of the SC there is more material at State_Parties_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#India. About United States and the International Criminal Court - I was the one who originally spun off (and re-wrote most of) this article and it was because I thought it was too long and to tangential for this article. Although I completely agree with you - I've pruned it before - I think we're fighting a losing battle as people tend to keep coming back and adding things back in. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About the Crime of Aggression (CAG)

Hi, I'm new to English version of Wiki but I've contributed on updates related to Japan before and I did so just moments before this entry too. You mention the Crime of Aggression in the very first part of the page but you only mention that CAG is NOT within the jurisdiction of the Court very briefly with explanations, very late in the page under Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. I think this structure is problematic because it is a given fact that CAG DOES NOT fall under the Court's jurisdiction until the definition of the crime is set, as you explained in the section. I think some section of this explanatory part should be included in the VERY BEGINNING so that it will not make viewers who only take a glance of the first few paragraphs of the page and say, "Hey, the ICC DOES have jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression!", having misguided knowledge about the Court's ACTUAL jurisdiction. So can the very first sentence of the page be rephrased as something like the following?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is also desgined to have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but it can only exercise it when the defenition of the crime is set (Add a reference link connecting to the reasons here --> This one).

Would this work for you? As an advocate of the ICC myself and being a member of the NGO Coalition for the ICC (CICC), I find it pertinent to have this information laid out in the very beginning to facilitate better and correct understanding of the Court's capabilities and limits. I'd appreciate it if you can consider making this change. Thank you.--Etranger3 01 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I agree it needs to be clear how the court works and its jurisdiction, especially bearing in mind how much disinformation and mis-assumptions there are out there. However, I like the way the currnt version is worded. The court was established to prosecute aggression (inter alia), and looking at the way the talks are going it appears likely that it will in the not too distant future get jurisdiction over this area. The next sentence "although it cannot currently exercise its jurisdiction" immediately solves the problems of anyone who is misguided as you mentioned. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Public opinion in the US

An IP has removed the statement that “69% of Americans supported U.S. participation in the ICC”, claiming that “that is NOT what this source said....”

The source was a media release by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, describing a poll of 1,182 Americans. It says:

“In July 2004 CCFR found 76% support for US participation in the ICC, while in September PIPA found 74% support. However, in the current poll this support dropped to 69%.”

I'm restoring the statement. If anyone wants to change it, please read the source first.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The source doesn't read too well - at first it talks only of Darfur, but ypou're right it does refer to general participation in he court near the bottom. The current version does appear to be attributable to the source cited. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The opinion polls on this point are misleading, at any rate. As evidence for this clearly POV position, it is hard to find a mainstream politician with national ambitions willing to go out on a limb in support of the US signing on to the ICC. If 69% of the American public truly supported the ICC, I doubt you would see such a dearth of support for it in the American political sphere. What I expect you are seeing is people's responses to the question, "Do you support the U.S. joining the International Criminal Court to prosecute those who commit genocide,...etc. etc.?" Rephrase the question to "Do you support the U.S. joining the ICC if it meant subjecting U.S. sovereignty to an international organization with the power to try U.S. leaders and soldiers,...etc. etc.?" and I doubt you'd get the same answer. So, at best, that statement about widespread U.S. public support for the ICC is misleading. Epstein's Mother 12:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Epstein, I would like to respectfully submit that your statements above are overly simplistic. Popular support for something doesn't always translate into political support, even in a country like the United States where politicians get elected by the public. What is equally -- if not more -- important is whether or not the establishment agrees with public opinion. There's no question that the American military-industrial elite are vehemently opposed to the Court, and politicians who would be more inclined to support the ICC know that they have to go up against powerful interests, even if they aren't popular ones. Politically, it makes sense for them to leave the issue alone if their main objective is to get elected.
I do of course agree with you that the phrasing of the question is crucial: anyone who's ever tried to conduct a survey knows that the results can change dramatically depending on the wording of the question. However, I think that the question, "Do you support American participation in the International Criminal Court?" is a pretty neutral way of getting the desired information, much more so than asking something like "Do you support American strategic and sovereign interests being usurped by a foreign institution?" or, at the other extreme, "Do you support the perpetrators of hideous crimes being brought to justice?" Your comments above seem to imply dissatisfaction that the question put to the public doesn't first present arguments before soliciting opinions. I therefore think the survey results are credible (enough) and should appear on the page. (What would be better is if we had survey results where respondents were asked to answer on a scale of 1 to 7 or something like that; this way we could see how strongly the American public supports or opposes the Court.) --Todeswalzer|Talk 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, it would be helpful if people would read the source before criticising it.
Note that the respondents were not asked if they supported “the U.S. joining the International Criminal Court to prosecute those who commit genocide,...etc. etc.?” Also note that half the respondents were first told that some people argue that “the U.S. (United States) should not support the Court because trumped up charges may be brought against Americans, for example, US soldiers who use force in the course of a peacekeeping operation.” Among Republicans, support for the ICC fell slightly when they heard this argument; among Democrats, there was no significant change in support. In any case, even among those who heard the argument against the Court, a sizeable majority favoured US support.
(Having said that, I have my doubts about whether this poll is relevant for inclusion in the main ICC article: why go into so much detail about the United States here when we have a separate article on the United States and the International Criminal Court?)
Sideshow Bob Roberts 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey provided uses biased question

THe survey saying Americans supported the court was extremely biased, I removed the reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:128.230.188.84 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but please join the discussion on this talk page before deleting. It is not enough to say the survey used a “biased question”: please explain why you think so.
I'm restoring the deleted material until someone who has actually read the source explains why it's not reliable. (Again, let me point out that I have no particular attachment to this survey and I don't care whether it stays or not. I just object to people deleting it because they disagree with its conclusions.)
Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Human security

The following paragraph was recently added to the lead section:

“The ICC is strongly related to the concept of human security, which focuses on ensuring the security of individuals. The court was created under this train of thought, and it provides enforcement of it.”

I'm removing it for the following reasons:

  1. It's not attributable. The reference provided doesn't say the ICC is “strongly related” to the concept of human security or that “the court was created under this train of thought”.
  2. It's clearly out of place in the lead section, as per WP:LEAD.
  3. It seems bizarre to discuss human security in this article without discussing other concepts which are more clearly relevant to the court, such as human rights, universal jurisdiction, the responsibility to protect, etc.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

US Objections

No one has offered any quote or support for the theory that the US Government in any way "opposes" the ICC. Please do so, or refrain? The US Government does oppose ICC jurisdiction over US citizens, (unless properly referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council. There is great difference between the legally appropriate decision (of any nation)not to enter into this treaty - and to "oppose" other nations entering into whatever treaties they may wish to have?

Article 6 of the US Constitution denies the authority of any branch of government to enact any law or treaty that diminishes any of the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. If the ICC is willing to guarantee US citizens these human rights, only then can such a treaty legally be entered into.

Surveys of public opinion within the US are irrelevant since the US Constitution bars acceptance of the ICC jurisdiction unless it accepts the fundamental human rights of Americans.

(I'm new to Wiki, so hints as to format and etiquette are welcome.) Raggz 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No one's offered anything to support the "theory" that the US Government opposes the ICC? I think repeated statements to the effect of "we'll use whatever means necessary to free our citizens from the jurisdiction of the Court", not to mention the approximately 60 bilateral agreements signed with member states saying that neither will surrender the other's citizens to the Court under any circumstances, should provide ample evidence of US hostility. (I also recall some underhanded tactics that were used in getting such agreements, such as the withholding of foreign aid, debt relief, etc., from countries which rebuffed such overtures -- not exactly like the US has just said, "Okay, you can join the ICC if you want, it isn't our concern.")
So I don't really know what you're talking about. I also might point out that international human rights standards are rather more inclusive than those provided for in the US Constitution (i.e. the prohibition of the use of the death penalty), so there really isn't much (real) dispute over whether the Court would protect the rights of those brought before it. I'm unsure whether you're trying to advance the legal argument above or just reporting it, but either way it's really quite ridiculous (from a legal perspective, that is). --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"we'll use whatever means necessary to free our citizens from the jurisdiction of the Court". OK, let's say that is the exact language of the US Government? Why would the ICC be holding Americans prisoner? Wouldn't holding Americans as hostages or prisoners be a clear violation of international law? Why would the ICC do this? Raggz 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"the approximately 60 bilateral agreements signed with member states saying that neither will surrender the other's citizens to the Court under any circumstances, should provide ample evidence of US hostility. Why do you argue that the US should not engage in diplomacy? Article 98 was put into the Statute of Rome for this exact purpose, to recognize and encourage diplomacy. Why are you arguing with the Statute of Rome with me? 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"not exactly like the US has just said, "Okay, you can join the ICC if you want, it isn't our concern". Actually the US has said exactly that. The US supports the ICC, just not ICC jurisdiction over Americans. Show ONE citation that suggests otherwise. Raggz 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"So I don't really know what you're talking about." True enough. Raggz 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"I also might point out that international human rights standards are rather more inclusive than those provided for in the US Constitution (i.e. the prohibition of the use of the death penalty), so there really isn't much (real) dispute over whether the Court would protect the rights of those brought before it."

Here you make an excellent point. There are many civil liberties recognized in this large world we live in, and nowhere is there a government that recognizes them all. The civil right of convicted criminals to not be executed is not recognized by some US states. (Btw, the US Government lacks constitutional authority to ban the death penalty, we have a "federal system" leaving this to the states, but I digress). Canada will not respect extradition to the US if the death penalty may result. This is to be respected, it is an expression of Canada's right to determine what civil rights will and will not be respected. The US takes an analagous position with Canada, asking her to agree not to extradite Americans to any jurisdiction that does not respect their right of jury trial (diplomacy - as the Statute of Rome encourages under Article 98).

Will the ICC respect the right of Americans to their fundamental civil liberties? One of these is the right to trial by jury (what's the big deal about this anyway at the ICC) and the right to bear arms, and the right to confront their accuser? Yes - or No? Will Americans fundamental civil rights be respected?

I note that STILL, no one has offered any reference that shows that (1) the US Government opposes the ICC (other than jurisdiction over Americans) or (2) that the US opposes any nation from joining the ICC, or (3) that diplomacy under Aricle 98 of the Rome Statute is in any way improper or illegal under international law.

You can obviously get POV-driven quotes, but serious references are at this point ZERO. There will be none offered? Raggz 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

THE ICC AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Is the ICC an attempt to build an alternative to the United Nations? The United Nations does everything that the ICC does, and more? Is it a valid POV to see the ICC as an attempt to create another UN? If not, why not?

Should nations committed to the protection of human rights through actions of the United Nations oppose the ICC as an unneeded competitor? Why does the world need more than one judicial system, why have competing courts?Raggz 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, I really don't know what you're talking about here. The UN doesn't really do anything that the ICC is designed to do, and there isn't "more than one judicial system" -- if you could call it that -- in international law. I suspect you're confusing the ICC with the ICJ (the International Court of Justice), the latter of which arbitrates "legal" disputes between states, the former of which prosecutes individuals for breaches of international human rights norms.
As for "valid" points of view, that's obviously outside the scope of the article and so is irrelevant to this discussion page. --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, please note that this talk page is not a forum for general conversations about the International Criminal Court; discussion should be kept to the topic of how to improve this Wikipedia article. Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much detail about the United States?

I'm removing this.

This article is about the International Criminal Court, not the United States. Granted, some aspects of America's relationship with the ICC may be notable enough to mention here (such as Bilateral Immunity Agreements or the UN Security Resolutions shielding UN peacekeepers from ICC prosecution). However, discussions about the rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights, or the executive branch's authority to enter into international agreements, are off-topic. There is a separate article about the United States and the International Criminal Court, where this stuff may be relevant.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This reflects an intrinsic POV in editing that detracts from the article. If the editorial intent is to exclude the conflict between civil liberties as recognized within the US and those recognized elsewhere, fine. This is not the case. The article needs to be seriously edited to remove POV based statements about this conflict. For example Human Rights Watch is used to speak for the US position on the ICC issues - and you edit out the official position of the US Government? Why can't the statements of the US Government speak for the US Govrnment? Why should you use Human Rights Watch POV in lieu of the official position? I am a new user, how may I appeal this seemingly abitrary edit? If you include the official objections of the US Government in the article, why edit the actual objections in favor of Human Rights Watch?

Please explain why you deleted the official position of the United States in favor of a Human Rights Watch opinion on the official position of the United States Government?

Do you agree that the ICC is attempting to emerge as a sustainable global judicial authority, and that the basis for the US-led opposition is a critical issue for the future of the ICC? Why are you trying to edit an attempt to balance this discussion? You can edit out the one-sided US references, that too would be fair.

Do you agree that this conflict is about the different civil liberties recognized by the US and the ICC? (If not, do you agree that the two bodies recognize fundamentally different civil liberties?) If the current POV- based statements (often with weak or no support) are to be retained - then it is necessary to reach a NPOV by permitting fair and balanced additions?

Do you agree that the Rome Statute denies the long-accepted civil liberty of Trial by Jury? I protest your removal of my edit that this civil liberty is denied by the Rome Statute. It is a fact of relevance, and the center of the International debate. You should not edit this away to protect your POV.

You claim that the US "unsigned" the ICC treaty. I offered the relevant US law proving that the treaty was never entered into by the US Government, nor was it ever "unsigned". Did Clinton return and cross-out or obliterate his signature? Do you have some reference that proves he did this? I protest your removal of the references necessary to prove that this treaty was never signed, much less "unsigned". If you bring it up, I should be able to offer the documents disproving it? So drop your claim, - or support it and permit a balancing POV. Either way, strive for a NPOV.

Just delete all references to the ICC/US issues - or permit a NPOV by extensive refrences. Either is a fair way to edit. Raggz 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raggz, thanks for joining the discussion. I'll try to address what I think are your key points.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say “Human Rights Watch is used to speak for the US position on the ICC issues”. I think that section of the article is clear enough: the first paragraph outlines a criticism of the ICC (“Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.”) and the following paragraph responds to that criticism. Nowhere is it suggested that Human Rights Watch is speaking for the United States government, and I'm not sure where you got that idea.
“Do you agree that this conflict is about the different civil liberties recognized by the US and the ICC?” Actually, no. America's opposition to the Court has very little to do with “different civil liberties”: it is about exposing US citizens to prosecution by an International Criminal Court over which the United States has no control. Ambassador David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference (and who voted against the treaty), makes this clear here.
You mistate what Ambassador David Scheffer said seven years ago (note: your CNN transcript is aging). Does Wiki have some means of arbitration about what the actual facts in a citation are? here Your citation actually supports my point and disproves yours. May I suggest that you should primarily (but not exclusively) cite the actual statements of the Government of the United States when stating what its policies are?
“I protest your removal of my edit that this civil liberty is denied by the Rome Statute. It is a fact of relevance, and the center of the International debate. You should not edit this away to protect your POV.” The article already states clearly that “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers”. No-one is attempting to hide this fact. However, this article is not the place for a discussion of how these rights are central to the US Constitution. (You may, however, wish to discuss this in the United States and the International Criminal Court article.)
“I protest your removal of the references necessary to prove that this treaty was never signed, much less "unsigned".” This is a bizarre claim. The fact that the United States signed the treaty is well referenced (see, for example, this, this, or this letter in which John Bolton refers to the US signature). You will not find a single person who understands international law who claims the United States never signed the treaty.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So you claim that I do not understand international law? A personal remark here? I disagree, I understand international law and I am helping you here with it.
Sorry, I'm not trying to make a personal attack here, and I apologise if I appeared to do so. I was simply pointing out that everyone agrees that the United States signed the treaty, so you won't find a reliable source to back up your claim that this never happened. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The President has no authority to enter into treaties, and every nation in the world knows this. Why not just stick to the facts? You can mention the presidential signature IF you think it is important enough - but then you must accept clarification with the applicable US law that proves the signature was unauthorized by the Government of the United States? Just write it up so that it has a NPOV, OK? Signed, unsigned, whatever you want, as long as you stick to the facts. Personally, I think that the signature and unsignature are irrelevant, just stuck into to advance a POV.
Bottom line: Just don't write it so that it incorrectly claims that the Government of the United States entered into a treaty and then withdrew. Don't falsely suggest that the US has ever opposed the ICC, or falsely suggest that Article 98 diplomacy is somehow an evasion of the ICC.
Raggz 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
“you must accept clarification with the applicable US law that proves the signature was unauthorized by the Government of the United States“. You appear to be confusing signature with ratification. There is no doubt that the President is authorised to sign treaties on behalf of the United States. Again, you will not find a reliable source to support your claim.
“Personally, I think that the signature and unsignature are irrelevant, just stuck into to advance a POV.“ Nobody is trying to advance a POV here. I don't really understand what sort of argument you think we're advancing by stating this.
The article does not “incorrectly claim that the Government of the United States entered into a treaty and then withdrew” The article states that the US signed, but did not ratify, the treaty, then withdrew its signature. Everyone (including the United States government) agrees that this is what happened. Not mentioning this in the section on "Membership" would be a glaring omission. I don't know why you insist on reading this as an attack on the US. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rights of the accused

I added "The Rome Statute does not recognize the Right to Jury Trial".

This is an important fact. First is is merely a disclosure of what civil liberties are respected by the ICC and which are not. Second, this ommission is central to the future growth of the ICC, because ommitting it requires the US Govenment to organize global opposition.

These eleven words bring this section to a NPOV. Why hide central facts from the reader? Raggz 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Victim participation and reparations

This section is unclear as to how judicial objectivity is maintained prior to trial. Under rights of the accused, it is claimed there is a preumption of innocence. In this section, it describes the Court taking sides with the "victim". Now we all want victims to be assisted, but BEFORE a trial is held, how is it determined who is the victim?

Of course victims require assistance, but shouldn't this assistance be handled by a neutral party? Raggz 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The ICC in popular culture

Why not move this to it's own stubb? It should remain avaialable, but has no relvance to this article. Raggz 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This section will only get bigger, and the article's already too long. Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of due process

"Many American critics of the Court, such as the Heritage Foundation, claim that “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.”[56]

You insist upon using the Heritage Foundation to articulate the official policy of the United States Government. I deleted this, and I added the official policy of the United States Government instead. Why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is better qualified to speak on what US policy is than the official policy statement? Raggz 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You had edited the paragraph so that it read Many American critics of the Court, such as the United States Government[57], claim that “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.”[58] This was misleading, because the quotation is from the Heritage Foundation, not the US government, so I removed the words (“such as the United States Government”) but I did not remove an actual articulation of the US government's position. No-one is trying to “edit out” the US government's position.
By the way, I'm not sure why you think this is about “what US policy is”. It's a section of criticisms of the ICC. The reason the (anti-ICC) Heritage Foundation is quoted here is quite simply they express the anti-ICC view very well.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine, use the Heritage Foundation to express an "anti-ICC view". The Government of the United States does not have an "anti-ICC view". The Government of the United States has always been a strong supporter of the ICC and continues to be. (I posted the Department of State website stating this and you deleted it.) IF the ICC had made a stronger commitment to advancing Human Rights, it would have had the full support of the Government of the United States. (Look at the Department of State website if you doubt this, I posted it and you deleted it.)
I did not delete the link to the State Department website. It's still in the previous paragraph, where it has always been. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The recent ICC investigation into British military conduct in Iraq is an excellent example of the politicization of the Court that was predicted. There never was anything to investigate, but the ICC prosecutor was politically pressured into a pointless investigation. An investigation was launched without probable cause. When you write this investigation up, how about titling the section POLITICAL PRESSURES ON THE ICC?
Raggz 07:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This is off-topic, but I don't want to let this nonsense go unchallenged. That's not what happened. The prosecutor received complaints that British soldiers had committed crimes in Iraq but he declined to launch a formal investigation because the British government was already investigating the allegations. A British court has since convicted Corporal Donald Payne of war crimes, demonstrating that the charges were neither “politically motivated” nor “without probable cause”. If you want to be taken seriously here, you may wish to check your facts before claiming that “there never was anything to investigate”. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the pointless and politically motivated investigation into war crimes in Iraq. If you don't believe me then read the ICC document that makes these same points (but far more diplomatically). [3] The ICC undertook a pointless investigation that revealed nothing. If not because of political pressure - why would they do this?
Raggz 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The ICC did not undertake “a pointless investigation that revealed nothing”. The ICC has never investigated war crimes in Iraq. The letter you cite concludes: “I wish to inform you of my conclusion that, at this stage, the Statute requirements to seek authorization to initiate an investigation in the situation in Iraq have not been satisfied.” Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This was not a criminal investigation to determine if the British Government was hiding war crimes in Iraq? It wasn't an investigation admitted to have been undertaken without any strong evidence but with much political pressure? Did the ICC lump the UK government's integrity with those like Zimbawae? Where am I mistaken? What was it about? Raggz 05:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

DEMAND FOR A NPOV

There is a section claiming that the United States "opposes" the ICC, and the editor refuses to support this claim. (The seven year old CNN transcript cited does not support this claim.) I will delete this section if it is not supported. Does anyone have ANY support for this theory that the US opposes the ICC, that the official US statement on this is a lie? Please post it. Raggz 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly support removing the “Opposition to the Court” section. At present, it's by far the longest section in the article, it duplicates the United States and the International Criminal Court article, and it's of little interest to readers from outside the US.
Let's wait a few days to see if anyone disagrees. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ALL of the Article 98 discussion needs revision to attain a NPOV. Before I edit it to attain this objective, is there any objection? Article 98 is part of the Statute and is being used exactly as intended, for diplomacy regarding ICC jurisdiction. Does anyone have a problem with stating that Article 98 diplomacy was intended when Article 98 was included? What we have here are people with a POV that Article 98 is a bad Article? Well, this POV is irrelevant to the article, isn't it? We also have people with a POV that Artcle 98 diplomacy by the US is bad diplomacy? This POV is irrelevant and will soon be deleted.

Does anyone have a problem with the goal of a NPOV? Do we all agree that the POVs above must go? Raggz 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the US is using Article 98 “exactly as intended” is a controversial claim, with which most scholars (and many governments, including the European Union) strongly disagree. If you wish to re-insert this claim, make it clear that this is just one interpretation of Article 98, and quote the alternative interpretation.
The text you are referring to currently reads as follows:
The U.S. has also made a number of Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs, also known as "Article 98 Agreements") with a number of countries, prohibiting the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and U.S. employees (including non-national contractors) and nationals. As of 2 August 2006, the US Department of State reported that it had signed 101 of these agreements.[70] The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs.[70]
I think this presents the basic facts about bilateral immunity agreements, with which everyone (including the US government) agrees, and reads quite neutrally: there is no suggestion that “Article 98 is a bad Article” or that the US and other countries are not entitled to enter into these agreements. Again, I can't understand why you insist on interpreting everything in this article as an attack on the US.
(By the way, please ensure in future that sources say what you claim they say. It is not appropriate to state in the article, as you did, that “Article 98 agreements like this are fully compatible with the Rome Statute” and refer to the Rome Statute as your only source, because the Rome Statute does not say that it is fully compatible with bilateral immunity agreements.)
Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Article 98 of the Rome Statute: Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity

and consent to surrender

1. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.
2. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.
[4]
The language of Article 98 is "fully compatible with bilateral immunity agreements".
Raggz 01:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the Rome Statute is original research unless you can cite a reliable source that explicitly agrees with you. (This should be easy to do, since this is the position of the US government.) In this case, the Rome Statute is not an appropriate source since it does not explicitly say that Article 98 is "fully compatible with bilateral immunity agreements".
Furthermore, even if you do quote a reliable source, your statement that Article 98 is "fully compatible with bilateral immunity agreements" is an opinion, not an established fact. (The fact that the European Union disputes your interpretation demonstrates this.) When inserting controversial opinions, please be careful to label them as such and, if appropriate, note the alternative view. It is misleading to state that BIAs are fully compatible with the Rome Statute without noting that many scholars and governments strongly deny this. Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no opposition, why have a section on this? I would like to see a Future Challenges of the Court Section. The US is now irrelevant to the ICC. The only remaining US issue is jurisdiction over US citizens, and Article 98 agreements have largely resolved this issue. The ICC will just ignore Americans anyway. What is the idea, a New Orleans Tribunal? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do people have questions about the US issues? If so, then answering these would have purpose. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, we will wait a few days, as long as they offer a reliable source to support this theory. For example: a citation that shows that the US has tried to keep one nation from joining the court? Can we agree that citations as to unsupported opinions should not count? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are Article 98 agreements important to this Article? I don't see any relevance to the Article. The ICC won't be aresting or trying Americans anyway? Can you imagine a case where this would happen? Americans who commit crimes will be tried by the same courts that try them now? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Presently the text is pointless, there is no context and no conclusion, just a thinly layered POV that the US is doing something improper by conducting normal diplomacy. I would like an A-98 section somewhere, because people are curious about this. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So post some of these European scholars on A-98? IF we get into A-98 we should give the discussion context, beginning with why should anyone care about bi-lateral diplomacy. I don't know why anyone would, but I can learn. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

SIGNING & UNSIGNING

The article states "On 2002-05-06, the Bush administration announced it was cancelling the United States' signature of the treaty."[68] This reference does not support this statement. The Government of the United States actually said in the referenced document "... the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000". I suggest substitution of the actual statement, actually I prefer that the whole signing issue it be deleted as it is irrelevant? Write it as you wish, just don't incorrectly claim that the US canclled this treaty, your reference uses "no legal obligations", not cancelled, that phrase would be fine.

Vice-president Al Gore did the same thing, when signing the Kyoto Protocol. Look at how that article handled this? "The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified." "On 1998-11-12, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[42] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification." Raggz 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you actually believe that there is a difference between “withdrawing signature”, “cancelling signature”, “unsigning the treaty” and whatever wording you wish to use, feel free to change it but all these terms are used interchangeably in the literature (and by Bush administration officials) and you seem to be the only person with a problem. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Article 2(c) “'full powers”' means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty.
International law is guided by the statute above. The US President is constitutionally restricted from expressing "the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty". (The US system is confusing, I know.) This same treaty might be invoked to prevent the US from interfering with the ICC, if it had ever "consented to be bound" by the ICC treaty. Precise language may in this case be important, as if often true, precise language may lead to precise international law.
You're still confusing signature with ratification: the US President is not authorised to express the state's consent to be bound by a treaty (which is also known as “ratification”) but he can sign a treaty (and he can withdraw his signature). Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Early development

"The movement for the creation of an international court to deal with the problem of crimes committed against humanity gained force after the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, established to punish serious crimes committed by the losing sides during World War II. At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Law Commission drafted two draft statutes by the early 1950s, but these were shelved as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.[2]"

This paragraph suggests that Nuremberg and Tokyo are analagous international courts - but the citation itself makes multiple stong cases otherwise. To claim that Nuremberg is an analgous court is to advance a legitimate POV. There is nothing wrong with making this claim, and there is ample support for it. There is another legitimate POV that Nuremberg has no relevance to the ICC. How can these competing POVs be balanced here to attain a NPOV? Really getting into this would take space. I suggest dropping the controversial implication that Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunls are in any way related to the ICC? However the editor manages to attain a NPOV will be fine by me. It is implied, not stated, I could live with this paragraph unchanged, but it could be a lot better.

The UN was the focus for international justice in the 1950's and 60's. Didn't the ICC movement begin later? Were these 1950's drafts used when the ICC was formed?

The Cato Institute citation included specifically opposes a comparison of Nuremberg and the ICC. The first sentence twists its actual context. I'm not certain if it is approprate?

Does the article need this paragraph?

How might we attain a NPOV in regard to Nuremberg as relevant analagous tribunal? Raggz 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

THE UNITED STATES

The article mistates it's supporting reference when it says "However, public opinion polls routinely show strong popular support for the Court: the most recent poll, conducted in February 2005, found that 69% of Americans supported U.S. participation in the ICC.[69]"

Consider the title of this supporting reference? "Large Bipartisan Majority of Americans Favors Referring Darfur War Crime Cases to International Criminal Court" It goes on to say "However, a majority of Americans (60%) favor referring these cases to the International Criminal Court rather than using a temporary tribunal, as the administration has proposed."

I will delete this misleading statement (above) soon, because it misrepresents it's reference source. Does anyone object? Raggz 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, the source you refer to says:
“In July 2004 CCFR found 76% support for US participation in the ICC, while in September PIPA found 74% support. However, in the current poll this support dropped to 69%.”
As you can see, 69% of Americans polled supported “US participation in the ICC”. The 60% figure to which you refer concerns the referral of Darfur war crimes to the ICC. Again, it would be helpful if you would read your sources (or this talk page) carefully before criticising the article.
(Anyway, this point is moot if we can all agree to delete the entire “Opposition to the Court” section) :-) Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

INCREASED ICC CIVIL RIGHTS

The United States is an advocate for increased ICC civil rights. The ICC decision to limit these to their present level was among the reasons that the United States did not ratify the ICC treaty.

Can we agree that this statement meets NPOV standards? It is a fact, check the US Department of State website. Raggz 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do you want to insert this into the article? I don't see why it's relevant here, but you may wish to consider adding it to the United States and the International Criminal Court article. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vienna Convention

The article claims "A further 41 states have signed but not ratified the treaty;[10] the law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty."[11] This reference does not support it's claim.

"Article 18: Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force. A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:

(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or

(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed. [5]

The US for one example does NOT meet the criteria under Article 18, so it clearly does not apply.[6] [7]This statement reflects my POV and can be supported. The text in the article is misleading factually, and reflects a POV.

So the question is: Is the Vienna Convention so important that it need be included in THIS article? Should the debate and article be seperate, or does it belong in this article? Raggz 07:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the article is correct and uncontroversial. 41 states (including the United States and Israel) signed the treaty on or before 31 December 2000. (This is an indisputable fact.) According to article 18(a) of the Vienna Convention, each of these 41 states was thus “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the Statute, until they made their intention clear not to become a party to the treaty (which the United States did on 6 May 2002 and Israel did on 28 August 2002). Since 6 May 2002, the US no longer has any legal obligation to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. I think the article has always made this clear, but I'll alter the wording just to be sure. Let me know what you think.
By the way, I still cannot understand why you think this section was POV, or what POV people were advancing here. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the wording of the article is correct and uncontroversial.
President Clinton acting without the consent of the US Government signed the treaty. This can easily be proven, as only the Senate may ratify a treaty and never a President. Not only is this embarrassing to the US, it properly leads to confusion on your part and others. The US President "signed" but never "ratified" this treaty, so you are correct to state that the US signed it, but this statement will mislead people into believing that the signature represented the Government of the United States.
Article 18(a) of the Vienna Treaty (not signed by the US, but a treaty with UN standing) would only apply IF the Article 2(c) definition of "full powers" is met. In this case the Head of State signed a treaty even though the nation's constitution did not confer "full powers" to do so. Every nation knew that Clinton lacked "full powers". On 6 May 2002 the Government of the United States clarified that this treaty had never been ratified. All of this can be documented, the only question is: should a long digression be included? I think not, but I will be guided by your editorial decision, as long as the inaccuracy is corrected.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Article 2(c) “'full powers”' means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty.
This is an unresolved question of law from one POV - and a matter of fact from the other, so I disagree that the wording of the article is correct and uncontroversial. Raggz 04:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no "unresolved question of law" here. Your claim that Clinton lacked "full powers" to sign the treaty is just plain wrong and you will not find a single reliable source who agrees with you. The US President has "full powers" to negotiate treaties and to sign them but not to ratify them. There is no danger that we will "mislead people into believing that the signature represented the Government of the United States" because his signature did represent the United States. Sideshow Bob Roberts 04:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point is taken. The Head of State signed a treaty. Everyone understood the context. The Versailes Treaty does not require documentation for a Head of State signing a treaty. Regardless of my legally factual domestic claims, the Head of State signed a treaty. You also correctly point out that my references cannot be cited. The Government of the United States being perhaps wiser than I am, does not contest your point. I still do. This is a serious point of law that the US choses not to contest. This distinction is too fine of a point for an adolescent student consulting an encyclopedia. The article should list the US as a signatory and a long explanation of the unusual circumstances should be cited in a reference for those few who read these. Raggz 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Today's “Big Revision”

Raggz, I can't understand this edit at all.

You've deleted the criticism section without giving any explanation. That section was crucial. (I'm kinda shocked that you would remove the statement that “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers” as I thought you felt very strongly about this.)

Much of the new stuff is unsourced and kinda puzzling (like “there are no nations who oppose the ICC” and “the ICC relationship with the UN grows more controversial”).

I thought you agreed to wait a few days before deleting the “Opposition to the Court” section, but you deleted it a few hours later — did I misunderstand you?

I'm reverting the most controversial changes but keeping as much as I can.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that because the US will never be subject to ICC jurisdiction, that the role of the US in regard to the ICC is now historical, and for this page the US is irrelevant. My feeling is that this is the wrong page to get into the US-ICC relationship. I now feel that the US might be best left off the page, but this POV is preliminary. It would be cleaner to just refer the US issues to the other page, as you have been suggesting? Is there any need to mention the US on the page at all?
The first problem is that the US Constitution and political system are well beyond those elsewhere to understand, and this is the wrong page to explain this. The second problem is that presently many are dripping with POV on US/ICC issues and simple factual referenced statements will still draw fire and will be dimissed reflexively. The sum of problems one and two results in a cumbersome article if a NPOV is attained by balancing claims on several issues? Why is the US important to the ICC? I'm open to learning this.
Example: you believe that the US opposes the ICC, but have not actual references because this seems so obvious that none have seemed necessary. I spent some time on this, and cannot find a single reference that supports your hypothesis, only opinions that people think that your hypothesis is true. If this hypothesis were true, some governmental official somewhere would have gone public if the US was trying to obstruct the ICC.
What I do find are zillions of references that do prove that the US is engaged in bi-lateral diplomacy to sign Article 98 agreements, and that this is annoying people organizations and states, especially the EU. This annoyance is a fact and no citation would be needed to describe it. This effort (from my POV) is only directed to ensuring that the fundamental civil liberties of US nationals are not violated by the ICC. This effort is somehow mispercieved to be opposition to the ICC, and it has nothing to do with opposing the ICC, but is for ensuring the protection of Americans. So, show me a citation that the US actually opposes the ICC? Right now I have offered one opposing your unsupported theory, (but I am being a bit impatient) .
The Government of the US has said that ICC relationship with the UN is cooling (and not said that this is a good thing), I cited this. I can cite the UN web page which describes the severed linkage in almost neutral terms, my relative at the UN tells me this as well, and I believe it to be true. Come 2009, the UN will follow the lead of the EU (or not). Only the US can save the ICC, and the US might attempt this. Should it? Raggz 05:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

ALL Necessary Force

From an American perspective, the Joint Resolution of the US Congress to use all necessary force to recover any American national held by the ICC is remarkable. The significance in the article is understated, it is a full conditional Congressional Declaration of War, unlike anything in American history. No other conditional declaration of war has been enacted prior. Under US law, the taking of one American hostage authorizes the President to immediately use all necessary force. This is most remarkable and unprecedented threat.

It authorizes (if necessary) the complete destruction of any nation or nations holding a single American under ICC jurisdiction. The Government of the United States never authorized this level of force against North Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: "Congress voted, on 1964-08-07, on a joint resolution which authorized the president "to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."[5] The Government of the United States never authorized "all necessary force" against North Vietnam. It has authorized "all necessary force" against any nation holding Americans under ICC jurisdiction, a far more grim authorization of force.

This authorization is not opposition to the ICC. It is opposition to any illegal application of jurisdiction by the ICC. Americans are not exempted from, or above any law. Americans violate laws and are tried and convicted for these every day by other governments. The only courts with recognized jurisdiction are the members of the United Nations and the UN itself. No other courts may capture or hold Americans hostage, and any nation that does so under ICC (rather than national) jurisdiction has declared war upon the United States.

The UN and the World Court may try Americans, as may any government that is a UN member. The ICC may not, unless the UN authorizes jurisdiction. Raggz 05:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, the article did note that Congress had passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, "permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court", until you deleted it.
You also deleted the link to the American Servicemembers' Protection Act article, which is the appropriate place for this discussion.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly correct, I deleted the American Servicemembers' Protection Act. As stated prior, the US is now irrelevant to the ICC and should not be in the article past the date of "unsigning". This is why it was deleted. I presumed incorrectly that the American Servicemembers' Protection Act was a minor issue related to Article 98 issues. I should have paid more attention to this before deleting it.
As an American I was astonished to learn that my nation had pre-authorized a full war with any nation holding an American under ICC jurisdiction. Only the judgement of the American President now tempers this conditional declaration of war, and the actions that may be taken. Never in American history has any other Congress issued a pre-declaration of war. I've not added anything back because I'm collaberating here. I lean toward leaving the US out of the article, as is now the case. Still, a pre-declaration of war without limitations on the force to be employed is from an American POV, remarkable. The American POV is however now irrelevant (until 2009). Raggz 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Part of the Lack of Due Process Section

"However, Human Rights Watch argues that “the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written”, including “presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy”.[61] According to David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference (and who voted against adoption of the treaty), “when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, ‘Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?’ And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test.”[62]"

This part of the article fails Wikipedia standards which state "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies."[8]. Specifically this challenge is based upon Wikipedia policy which states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

The Human Rights Watch reference fails this test. They state "‘Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?’ And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test.” This article has not verified basic facts. The US Constitution recognizes the right to trial by jury and the ICC does not. To suggest that the right to trial by jury is not a US fundamental constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is to mistate the facts. Thus the reference fails (for lack of fact checking), as does the language (above) which I have deleted. Raggz 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Raggz, this is not the first time you've criticised the article without reading it. The quote about the treaty being compatible with the US Constitution is not by Human Rights Watch, it's clearly by David Scheffer.
Might I respectfully suggest that Scheffer and his team of lawyers and diplomats working for the US State Department might know at least as much about this as you do? They specifically considered whether the treaty was compatible with the US Constitution and they concluded that it was. Your interpretation of the Sixth Amendment is not unquestionable dogma, and your suggestion that anyone who disagrees with you “has not verified basic facts” is absurd.
The article clearly presented both sides of the debate in what I think was a neutral manner. I'm restoring both the HRW and Scheffer quotes unless you can explain why they're not reliable sources. (The fact that they disagree with you is not a sufficient reason.)
Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your points. I do read what I comment upon, but have several serious brain injuries that limit my memory. My disability may be limiting my effectiveness here.
I reviewed the citation and agree that it does support your claim. You have actually found a US lawyer who agrees that the right to a jury trial is not to be found within the 6th Amendment. I also agree that he has an excellent education and knows the law better than I do. Your citation is agreed to be valid.
Raggz 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

If I have time, I'll archive this page in a couple of days. If there are any discussions that people think are active and should be kept, just list them below. Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The ICC in popular culture