Talk:International Criminal Court/Archive3

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

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)
Done — see International Criminal Court in popular culture. All comments and criticisms welcome! Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Crimes by UN personnel

The article currently states:

“The ICC has not yet opened investigations into abuse by the International security forces deployed to support UN Peacekeeping missions. The Statute authorizes ICC to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed within it's geographic member-nations, or by the member nations troops when deployed for UN peace keeping missions. Although the press and others have reported that UN Peace Keepers are committing crimes in many nations[75][76], but the ICC has yet to investigate.[77] The Heritage Foundation alleges that "...over 150 allegations of sexual abuse have been made against the civilian and military personnel deployed on the U.N. peacekeeping mis­sion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo— including persons from a number of ICC parties — but few prosecutions or investigations are ongoing."[78] In 2004 Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted that "I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place".[79] In April 2007 The Guardian investigated and learned that "It is thought that hundreds of children may have been abused" recently by UN Peace Keepers and that Government of Sudan is not responding: "Juba's county court judge, Ali Said, said that the region had seen an increase in child prostitution since the UN arrived. The majority of people working for the UN and NGOs are men and need to be entertained. But no cases have come to court," he said." [80] The ICC has jurisdiction over UN Peacekeepers, but will not investigate crimes by the UN.[81] The UN Office of Internal Oversight Service's most recent report did not include the ICC in regard to internal UN criminal oversight.[82]”

Sexual abuse and child prosecution are serious crimes, but they do not normally fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Unless a reliable source claims that UN personnel are suspected of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, and that the ICC has not responded appropriately, this entire section should go. Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if the crimes are not within the jurisdiction. Raggz 05:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
War Crimes:"In the context of war, a war crime is a punishable offense under international law, for violations of the laws of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime, while violations in internal conflicts are typically limited to the local jurisdiction. In essence, the term "war crime" represents the concept of an international jurisdiction as applicable to the most severe crimes, in areas where government is dysfunctional and society is in a state of turmoil."
I recall an ICC inter-state finding, but my memory is bad. Raggz 06:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have an authoratative citation suggesting (but not stating) that the ICC has jurisdiction. There are no national or local courts, I have a cite for this. By the definition above, I'm comfortable keeping it - unless you have an authority otherwise? Raggz 06:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My research suggests that War Crimes are under Article 8, and that the admission of widescale assaults on children without national prosecutions fall within the descretion of the ICC prosecutor. Here we have foreign troops doing whatever they wish in the absence of geographic national authority and a good case that neither the UN or the Command authorities are dealing with the issues. We have the local judge saying, these are men, they must be "entertained". We cannot decide if the issues in Sudan are severe, widespread, tacitly planned, all that falls upom a prosecutor who relies upon the child-rapists for security. Article 8(2)f is most relevant.
You are the expert, is there a clear line here that justifies a claim that the broad prosecutorial powers of the ICC could not be invoked to investigate? Do you doubt that if in Darfur you and I would want our security team to like us? My cousin has a metal skull plate and is blind because he neglected to consider the very delicate sensibilities of his security team in Ecuador.
As for me, I prefer to let the article be, it is over my head and I trust my references. Raggz 07:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Raggz, this is all original research.
If UN staff are suspected of war crimes, you should have no problem finding a reliable source who mentions this. If you can't find a source, you can't do your own analysis and decide that some of the alleged crimes meet the definition of war crimes.
You haven't cited a single source that criticises the ICC for not investigating crimes by UN personnel so, no matter how you phrase this section, it is entirely original research. It is also complete nonsense, which damages the article and makes Wikipedia look stupid. I'm removing the section unless someone can find a source for the allegations.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with sideshow Bob. There is no source that an allegation that crimes within the ICC's jurisidiction have been made to the prosecutor and that it has failed to investigate. In order to develop the point one would have to rely on an argument that the porsecutor should examine the matter on his own motion, but the basis for that is Raggz's own argument that all of these crimes constitute international crimes. My view is that he is tilting at windmills. However more importantly, and more relevantly, Raggz is using this wikipedia article to develop an argument of his own making. If he wishes to puruse this work, he should research it, and publish it in a peer reviewed journal [if they accept it, which I doubt because the jurisdictional argument is legally tendentious]. This section should be removed.Diranh 02:00, 25 May 2007 (GMT+1)
The source (Heritage Foundation) says that soldiers from ICC nations rountinely commit crimes with impunity, and that the ICC prosecutor has failed to investigate. When an occupying army (UN or not) emerge from an armored personnel carrier to seize and rape children as the UK Telegraph (cited) asserts, we have a problem? Are UN forces immune to war crimes prosecution? When you send wealthy armed troops into a poor country with no legal system and a powerless people, bad things will always happen. The principle of command authority applies here, IF there is a pattern of neglect and cover-up, the ICC should investigate up to the UN Secretary General, since he has the jurisdiction to. Look at the American example of Abu Girhab as a success story. An American soldier reported it, and the offenders were tried and convicted, and command responsibility cost the general her star. The ICC Prosecutor recently reported that not one reported war crime allegation in Iraq was ignored. Contrast this with the UN operations in Europe and Africa? Raggz 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The source cited claims crimes, not me. My next edit will trim a bit, to ensure complete compliance with the HF source. As for a jurisdictional argument, the source and not I makes the claim. How can you argue with a jurisdictional argument that I have not made? My opinion is that if the UN has permitted a widespread pattern of rape (as has been claimed), then we do have a war crime. We might or might not have an ICC war crime, but the ICC Prosecutor should investigate. Raggz 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said earlier, unless you can find a source that says UN personnel are accused of war crimes, this entire section is original research. I'm removing it again: please do not restore it again unless you can find a source. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As I repeat again, I have sourced and quoted my contribution. We disagree on this. Is there another way? Of course I will soon revert it, it is properly sourced. Did you read my comments on my page (since you don't have a page). Raggz 05:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You have not “sourced and quoted” your contribution. The Heritage Foundation source does not say that UN personnel have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The Heritage Foundation source does not criticise the ICC for not investigating crimes by UN personnel. You are the only person saying this nonsense. Please read your sources carefully, stop twisting other people's words, and remove your shoddy original research from this article. Sideshow Bob Roberts 15:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In any event, in such cases it is the responsibility of the state of the person accused of this wrongdoing to investigate and prosecute. Various investigations are ongoing, as the UN materials indicate. It is, at best, premature to say the ICC has refused/failed to investigate. Furthermore, I agree with Sideshow Bob that the sources referenced do not say as much in terms. However, I doubt if there is much point in expending energy trying to convince contributor Raggz. It's all rather tedious really.Diranh 17:20, 25 May 2007 (GMT+1)

The ICC Cannot Enforce Any Laws

The article currently states that the ICC lacks any enforcement capability. This is untrue: there are currently 104 states parties to the Rome Statute, all of whom are legally obliged to enforce the Court's rulings. In cases where the Security Council refers a situation to the Court, it is expected that the Security Council will take action to enforce the Court's rulings. There may be rare cases, such as the current situation in Uganda, where a non-state party refers a situation to the Court and then decides that it doesn't want to enforce the Court's decisions, but it is incorrect to say that the court lacks any enforcement capability. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. The ICC however, does not have any law enforcement capability whatever. This is a fact. It does have treaties that provide for assistance. There is a large difference between having a police force and having a treaty that permits borrowing a police force. If the ICC needs 48 law enforcement officers from the UK, do they request them, or order them to report? The difference is political, and while normally the difference is in practice minor, in the Sudan it is not. War criminals still operate with impunity and the ICC President says the reason is a problem with enforcement. I suppose it would make this article better to make this fact more clear, that there are supporting treaties but no structural capability for enforcement of laws? How do you think we should proceed, new language about treaties is my thought. Raggz 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There is much of evidence that the UN troops commit a lot of serious crime with impunity, and that the UN is not acting to resolve this problem. In all cases that I know of the ICC likely has jurisidiction (if the crime was a war crime - the Geneva Conventions restrict the right of the UN occupiers to systematically rape children, especially if done as a military force and not as individuals). What we need, but don't yet have, are citations that show that (1) the crimes are ALL (or mostly) without ICC jurisdiction, (2) that the UN is acting with good faith to prosecute criminals so the UN doesn't need ICC oversight, (3)that the ICC does not have jurisdiction to investigate UN crimes only because the UN is exempt, (4) that an ICC investigation showed a lack of "gravity", (5) that any ICC rule requires the ICC prosecutor to prosecute war crimes if he doesn't want to, or (6) That the principle of complimentarity applies to the UN investigations (as it does to members that are ICC members).

It likely can be proven that the lack of war crimes enforcement at the UN is a tacit UN policy to avoid political embarassment, that "what happens in the Sudan stays in the Sudan". Is the UN exempt from war crimes prosecution by the ICC?

If there are supporting references that make any of these points, it would help the reader to offer whatever balancing claims there may be support for. Raggz 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"When explaining why accused war criminals still remain free, the ICC President stated: "The ICC "does not have the power to arrest these persons. That is the responsibility of States and other actors. Without arrests, there can be no trials." If this is not true, why did he say this? Raggz 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

war crimes & icc jurisdiction in Sudan

The following is partly OR and most will not apear in the article War Crimes:"In the context of war, a war crime is a punishable offense under international law, for violations of the laws of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime, while violations in internal conflicts are typically limited to the local jurisdiction. In essence, the term "war crime" represents the concept of an international jurisdiction as applicable to the most severe crimes, in areas where government is dysfunctional and society is in a state of turmoil." Actual international law is more complex than wikipedia law, but if we assume the above is correct the ICC has jurisdiction from (1) The UN Security Council (which may enhance ICC jurisdiction), (2) Over all war crimes in Somalia, (3) Over all troops from ICC members. (4) The ICC is "local law", (the local judge is quoted saying child rape is not being tried because the soldiers are men and must be enterained.) An ocupying force has Geneva Convention responsibilities.

Next we have command responsibility. The Commander is appointed by the UN and has command responsibility (liability). The UNSG stated that there was a problem and that it would get fixed (in 2004). IF the problem was covered up or neglected (as widely alleged), then command responsibility goes up to whatever level should have stoped the war crimes, or held the criminals internally responsible. The nation that lent the Commander cannot be liable.

Somalia doesn't want UN troops, the UN mission is technically an invasion of Somalia by foreign troops. The war has already been ruled inter-state anyway. This means in "wikilaw" that "Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime".

Is the ICC Prosecutor expected to ignore the potential effect upon the ICC if he investigates the UNSG and the UNSC national representatives for command responsibility war crimes? What if he just prosecutes low level field commanders only, will they still protect ICC personnel? My OR point is that the ICC prosecutor would be foolish to focus on investigating ANY UN war crimes, regardless of merit. The UN has impunity under international criminal law in fact, if not in theory. Raggz 01:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Harrington Cite

This source is a serious work, but fact checking might be questioned as it seems self-published. I added it anyway, because it helps maintain a NPOV and I don't have a better source to manage this. It is a serious scholarly self-published source. Feel free to delete it, if it seems unreliable. We can bend the rule for NPOV compliance - if we want to. Raggz 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Impunity & ICC Prosecution

At present, the Criminal Impunity & ICC Prosecution section is the longest section in the article — almost as long as all the other criticisms put together. This is completely out of proportion to its importance.

Personally, I don't think this stuff merits a mention at all because the Prosecutor's decision is subject to scrutiny by the Pre-Trial Chamber. However, since at least one reliable source makes this criticism, I'm not inclined to delete it unless there's a consensus.

If we keep it, I think we should cut it down to one or two sentences at most. Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not start this section, but I wrote most of it. The bits I wrote, I wrote as a rebuttal to the criticism originally included, which was simply wrong. However I was wary of simply deleting the original stuff because I knew that would lead to the sort of unhelpful discussions/debates which have been precipitated about this part of the article. The material is not really a criticism of the ICC at all. Really if any of this material is to be keep at all, it should be moved to a section on the role and powers of the prosecutor. However there is more to that than what is here, and I haven't got time to write it. Diranh 23:47, 1 June 2007 (GMT+1)
Well, that is a problem. I do not want to write it either, so will wait for you to get the time. I believe that it would be better if edited by Diranh. Raggz 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think what Diranh is saying is that he or she has no intention of writing it, so you may be waiting a long time. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but Diranh might well have done a better job than I will. Raggz 02:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


This section is very well written, and is very informative. I suggest making it a page rather than inclusion here. I believe it to be an authoratative statement of the limits of prosecutorial power from a legalistic pov. As many reliable sources state, there are legalistic concerns and political concerns. The ICC is very much a legal institution AND it is a political institution. One weakness of this section is that it is way too long. The more important is that it totally neglects the political issues related to ICC prosecutions.

Americans expect political influence over prosecutions. Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President and are legally fired for political causes. This recently happened. Local US prosecutors and judges are elected politicians, and properly are subject to community political pressures. ICC prosecutors and judges are not elected. In China, there is some evidence that politics enters into the justices system, as it does throughout most of the world. This section should reflect worldwide concerns about political input into prosecutorial discretion. Raggz 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a legalistic reading whcih neglects the political realities of the court. My limited understanding is that it's true that American and Chinese judicial systems are generally more politicised than European ones and hence maybe we should be aware of the potential for bias here. A separate article? I'm not sure it would pass the test of WP:Notability on its own. Perhaps a separate article for Criticisms of the International Criminal Court, leaving just a bullet list here, would be more feasible. On the other hand we could just cut down the quotes to focus on the key issues. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

International Criminal Court template

I've created a new template for use at the bottom of some ICC-related articles:

International Criminal Court (ICC)
Statute - States Parties - Judges - Cases
Crimes:
Genocide - War crime - Crime against humanity - Crime of aggression
Accused persons:
Ahmed Haroun - Joseph Kony - Ali Kushayb - Thomas Lubanga
Raska Lukwiya - Okot Odhiambo - Dominic Ongwen - Vincent Otti
Miscellaneous:
United States and the ICC - American Servicemembers' Protection Act
The ICC and the 2003 invasion of Iraq - The ICC in popular culture
This box: view • talk • edit

Is this a bad idea? Please post any criticisms, suggestions, etc, to the template's talk page, not here. Thanks, Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The templates talk page link is broken. I don't understand what a template is.
It isn't broken just empty :) I've put some text in there so the link works now. Personally I like the template AndrewRT(Talk) 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The ICC cannot enforce laws

This section was deleted, why? The war criminals in Darfur are still free. When asked, the ICC President stated that the ICC cannot enforce laws unless others cooperate. The HF stated this was a problem, an inability to enforce laws. Is there a good reason not to revert this? We never discussed deleting this, but it was deleted. Raggz 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section, which stated:
“When explaining why accused war criminals still remain free, the ICC President stated: "The ICC "does not have the power to arrest these persons. That is the responsibility of States and other actors. Without arrests, there can be no trials."[96] The lack of any enforcement capability makes the ICC a less desirable institution in Sudan than would be an African Judicial authority.[97] As an international court without any means to enforce laws, the ICC has been criticised for lacking this important capability.[98]”
I have several problems with this.
Firstly, the article misrepresented the quote from the ICC President. His quote was not meant as a criticism of the Court, and it should not be interpreted that way. It is not clear, to me at least, why the Court should have the power to arrest people. As far as I'm aware, no other court in the world has this power. The Wikipedia article on the United States Supreme Court, for example, does not present that court's lack of any enforcement capability as a criticism. Nor does anyone find it necessary to misquote their sources and say “the Supreme Court has been criticised for lacking this important capability”.
  • The ICC President is speaking to the lack of an ICC law enforcement capability, which is the issue in this section. If you disagree, what is the subject that he is addressing?
  • The Heritage Foundation is making this criticism, not me. The criticisim may not be valid from your view, but it is what it is? Does it need pass your validity test to be included?
It is of course true that the ICC lacks the power to arrest the suspects in Darfur, but so does the UN Security Council, Interpol, the African Union, the United States and everyone else in the world except the government of Sudan. That is a simple fact of international law and international politics, and it is not clear why it should be cited as a criticism of the ICC.
  • I'm just quoting the HF's criticisim, your thoughts extend well beyond these. Feel free to add, assuming that you have the supporting source. I'm reading your issues as being that the HF has made an invalid criticisim, that you have a validity problem, that you disagree with the HF?
The statement that “The lack of any enforcement capability makes the ICC a less desirable institution in Sudan than would be an African Judicial authority” presents a controversial opinion as a fact. Nobody seriously thinks that there should be an international court with the power to arrest people, and there has never been a serious proposal to create one. The term “African Judicial authority”, which appears to have been invented by Wikipedia, suggests to the reader that there is an alternative to the ICC that doesn't “lack an enforcement capability”. This is not the case, and it is dishonest to suggest that it is. It is even more dishonest to present this to the reader as a truth, rather than an opinion.
  • Read the actual HF criticisim, accurately quoting it (I suppose by direct insertion rather than summary) is our task? Is there any of the following text not necessary for inclusion?
"The U.S. has not drawn the ire of human rights and ICC advocacy groups because it opposes an investigation into the atrocities in Darfur. What angers the ICC advocates is that the U.S. opposes using the ICC to investigate the atrocities in Dar­fur. The fact is that ICC advocates have focused attention away from the true failure—the inability to pass a Security Council resolution imposing sanctions if Sudan fails to constrain the militia groups—onto U.S. opposition to a Security Coun­cil resolution requesting that the ICC investigate atrocities in Darfur.
Worse, the ICC advocates are dismissive of valid reasons for establishing an ad hoc tribunal. From the U.S. perspective, using the ICC would undermine ongoing efforts to build regional capacity among Africans to handle conflicts and hold accountable those who commit atrocities. As noted by international lawyers Lee Casey and David Rivkin:
[B]oth of the ICC’s current investigations involve African countries, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, respectively. Adding Darfur to this list begins to look a very great deal like European justice for African defendants.[10]
Subsequent announcements that the ICC intends to look at cases in the Central African Republic and the Ivory Coast bolster that argument.
Moreover, the ICC lacks an enforcement mecha­nism and would face many challenges in arresting and incarcerating perpetrators, since Khartoum would be unlikely to assist the court. A regional solution based on an African Union and U.N. hybrid court approved by the Security Council— perhaps using the existing infrastructure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania—could count on support from the existing African Union forces to support the arrest and incarceration of the perpetrators and serve as the core of a permanent African Union court of justice, which is a goal of that body.[11]
The bottom line is that, while it is opposed to a Security Council resolution supporting an ICC investigation in Darfur, the U.S. has proposed a credible—even superior—alternative.[12] The fact that ICC advocates are angered by the U.S. proposal reveals that they are more interested in affirming the authority of the ICC through the Security Council than they are in seeing justice done."
The statement that “as an international court without any means to enforce laws, the ICC has been criticised for lacking this important capability” is not directly attributable to its source. Wikipedia does not put words into other people's mouths. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a problem, the real issue is my attempt for brevity has obscured the real meaning? Fine, I will just include extensive direct quotes instead.
The relevant quote is "Moreover, the ICC lacks an enforcement mecha­nism and would face many challenges in arresting and incarcerating perpetrators, since Khartoum would be unlikely to assist the court. A regional solution based on an African Union and U.N. hybrid court approved by the Security Council— perhaps using the existing infrastructure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania—could count on support from the existing African Union forces to support the arrest and incarceration of the perpetrators and serve as the core of a permanent African Union court of justice, which is a goal of that body." Then we have the ICC President's statement that the lack of an enforcement capability was permitting war criminals to roam free.
  • I suppose I should just quote the source, not try to reduce it by summarizing it? Persuade me that this is not a criticisim of the ICC? Before I restore the improperly removed properly supported text, help me with specific language that you may believe mistates the quotes?Raggz 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


The fact that the ICC (like the ICTR & ICTY) is unable to enforce its warrants is a major weakness of the court. This is in no way the case in the US. If a US court wants a suspect to appear they can issue a warrant whcih a policeman will go out and execute arresting the suspect. That doesn't stop people jumping bail or evading warrants but the job is so much harder for the ICC/ICTR/ICTY than it is for a US court.
Why do you think Mladic is still on the run? And Kony? The Darfur suspects?? The ICC has only managed to arrest a single suspect - a minor congolese warlord who was already banged up by the congolese government and was flown out on a French warplane in the dead of night in a political deal prior to the congolese elections.
I'll see if I can dig out a citable source to back up this criticism. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly a 'weakness' but I don't think it's accurate to call it a 'criticism'. The word criticism implies fault. All the other criticisms included in the article can reasonably be blamed on the Court, the Rome Statute or the Assembly but the fact that most ICC suspects are still at large cannot reasonably be considered the fault of the ICC or anyone associated with it. Moreover, I think it's fair to say that the reliable sources who mention this consider it a 'weakness' rather than a 'criticism'.
I think this point is worth mentioning somewhere in the article but I don't think it should be included in the 'Criticisms' section. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Congo

  • The relevant quote is "But America’s strong record on human rights is irrelevant to advocates of the ICC. Supporters of the court appear more interested in whether or not a country is a party to the Rome Statute than in whether or not the country actually lives up to the principles of the ICC treaty.
For instance, over 150 allegations of sexual abuse have been made against the civilian and military personnel deployed on the U.N. peacekeeping mis­sion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo— including persons from a number of ICC parties— but few prosecutions or investigations are ongoing. ICC supporters’ time would be better spent in pressing these countries to hold their nationals and military to account or urging ICC signatories Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Russia to address human rights concerns in their countries––violations that range from substandard to horrifying."''
  • There has been argument here that this criticisim is not directed at the ICC. I don't see how this can be taken otherwise. Please explain why this is not directed at the ICC and it's advocates?
  • I suppose I should just quote the source, not try to reduce it by summarizing it? Raggz 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to re-open this discussion? A few days ago, you agreed with Diranh that your interpretation of this paragraph was wrong. What will it take for you to let it go? What can you possibly hope to achieve, apart from wasting everyone's time and driving good editors away from this page?
Moreover, do you homestly think it's reasonable to ask other editors to explain sources to you, particularly since you will almost certainly ignore our explanations or raise the same issue again in a few days?
I have no intention of wasting any more time on this but, for the record, this is what Schaefer is saying: Many countries that support the ICC have less-than-perfect human rights records. It would be better if they focused on improving their own records instead of supporting this court.
You will note that this is not a criticism of the ICC. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Iraq & War Crimes

Deleted without discussion: "Some might be concerned that even one actual crime occured with impunity in Iraq, so the Prosecutor reassured those who are concerned that "the Office also collected information on national proceedings, including commentaries from various sources, and that national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents."

This is a direct quote from the ICC prosecutor, why was it deleted? 240 reports were received and investigated, and "national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents". Raggz 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Before you think about adding anything back to this article about war crimes in Iraq, please try to understand that the Prosecutor has never said that all the alleged war crimes that were brought to his attention have been investigated. The Rome Statute does not allow him to address this issue. Only a tiny fraction of the soldiers in Iraq come from States Parties, so it is likely that only a tiny fraction of the war crimes in Iraq were committed by citizens of States Parties. Therefore, the Prosecutor is obliged to ignore the vast majority of allegations. Do not word the article so that it implies that all (or most) war crimes have been investigated, as this is not what the Prosecutor said.
This has been explained to you before, but you continue to imply that national proceedings have been initiated with respect to each of the 240 communications received by the Office of the Prosecutor, which is clearly not the case.
Also note that the statement that “Some might be concerned that even one actual crime occured with impunity in Iraq, so the Prosecutor reassured those who are concerned” is original research. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was quite careful to use a direct quote so not to misstate what the prosecutor said. When he said "national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents", what is the alternative implication of what he said? Did he mean that in some cases that he was aware of, no national proceedings were initiated? My reading is that while national proceedings were initiated, he had not considered their adequacy or inadequacy since the gravity standard had not been met, he didn't need to. How did you read this sentence differently? Raggz 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, you appear to have replied to my comment without taking time to read it and understand what I meant. And you wonder why I think you're wasting my time. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

US Constitutional Rights and the ICC

I have preferred to leave the US out of this article because the US has no present role with the ICC and will not until 2009. Other editors insist upon including the US, which from my pov means that we need to be fair and balanced in exactly how the US role is included.

The article has a misleading quote when it says: "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.” This quote either requires deletion, or work to put it into the context that the quote was offered to CNN. I would prefer deletion, as the context within US Constitutional law is complex, and providing this context would be an uneeded diversion into US law.

One basic human right guaranteed by the US Constitution is the right to never be forced to a trial before any judge. The US Constitution specifically exempts members of the Armed Forces, (which unlike those of Europe have generally reduced human rights legally). Ambassador Scheffer made his comments in the context of the compatibility of trial for members of the US Armed Forces and it is innappropriate to use them in any other context, as they are in our article.

The UCMJ does require what amounts to a small version of a jury trial. Defendendts do not appear before a judge, (except for very minor matters where confinement cannot be imposed). The three military-member panels must include an enlisted member if the ascused is not a military officer, this is to better create a jury of their peers, and in most ways these panels function as small juries. Do we want to get into detail about the UCMJ and US Constitutional law? If so, we can do that. If not, the quote in question needs to go.

David Scheffer holds the opinion that members of the US Armed Forces could be tried by a three judge panel, so it is a fair quote only in that context. I can of course, provide authoratative opinions in contrast. Is this what we want? Raggz 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The United States is a very important country in the world today. Supporters of the International Criminal Court want it to become universal. The biggest opponent of the court is the US - it is the most vocal critic, it has done the most to undermine the ICC (through withdrawing aid to court supporters who refuse to sign non-extradition agreements, opposing the renewal of the Bosnia UNSC authoriation at one time). So why should an article on the ICC not make reference to the US? Seems a bizarre suggestion. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The US has been a supporter of the ICC, and it is only fair to say that it still is. The issue of universal jurisdiction unites some, but not all ICC supporters. You cannot cite a single example of the US undermining the ICC, the only US issue is about jurisdiction over non-members. The UNSC would not refer cases without US support for this. The Department of State (deleted) position contradicts your explanation of US ICC policy. You will find many allegations that US policy is as you say, but is there any factual basis to say the US is lying about it's position? The US engages in bilateral diplomacy to protect it's citizens, isn't this a common practice internationally?
The US discussion necessarily requires a great deal of attention, and I will be happy to add the necessary material. It is my editorial judgement that this detracts from the present unified flow of the article. Do you want to bring back a US section, or not? It will need be long and it will need a detailed review of US law in regard to ICC law. Raggz 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
“Ambassador Scheffer made his comments in the context of the compatibility of trial for members of the US Armed Forces and it is innappropriate to use them in any other context, as they are in our article.” Raggz, your interpretation of Scheffer's comments is, quite frankly, nuts. Yet again, you are reading stuff that just isn't there. Scheffer clearly believes that the Rome Statute is compatible with the US Constitution. He's not talking about trials for members of the US Armed Forces. The article did not quote him out of context. At this point, it's unclear to me whether you're completely incapable of reading sources correctly or just flat-out lying. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to lack the patience for the task. The US Constitution sets two standards for fundamental human rights, a higher standard generally than it recognizes for members of the Armed Forces. Ambassador Scheffer refers repeatedly to the Armed Forces, members of which do not have a right to jury trials. Just post the quote where he makes it clear that he is not referring to the Armed Forces? I have made errors before, perhaps I have again. Just support your claim. Raggz 23:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The US should not be in the introduction

Our article says "However, a number of states, including China, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined." The position of the United States Government may not be summarized by the single word "critical", so this sentence requires qualification. This qualification I view as an unneeded digression that would interfer rather than assist the Reader. Therefore I will delete this sentence because (1) it is contextually only partly accurate and (2) more than half of the nations of the world have not joined, so the focus on a few nations is unneeded, and (3) the concerns of China, India and the United States canot be summarized in one word, nor perhaps in one paragraph. Raggz 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The US is critical of the court. That is a completely accurate fact abundantly supported by the cited evidence. Why are you denying it? Why does it need qualification when the precise situation is explained further below? I dont accept that the position of a state cannot be summarised in a single word when it is further explained in the text below.
There are 193 states with general international recognition (see Countries of the world). Of these 104 are members of the ICC. Hence it is untrue that "more than half of the nations of the world have not joined" AndrewRT(Talk) 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course the US is critical of the ICC. That is not my point, not what I wrote. The US position is more complex than one word can summarize. I'm fine reverting this sentence, if there is a consensus to fairly describe or cite the actual US position (which has been deleted.) Do you want the evidence presented here before editing the article, I'm fine with that. Raggz 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I was mistaken. The former US position that I had recently read has changed. Presently it is: "The U.S. strongly opposes the Rome Statute as seriously flawed, but will work together with other nations to avoid any disruptions that might be caused by the treaty. The treaty itself provides for this, specifically in Article 98. We intend to pursue Article 98 agreements worldwide." This position I agree can be summarized as "critical".

Read this article - the US was a leader for the ICC [1] It suggests issues regarding criticisims of the ICC not yet included. We can include many of these with Article 98 discussions - or just not cover either POV? Raggz 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a very detailed article which goes into a huge amount of detail into the various nuances of the United States' position - United States and the International Criminal Court. This article should not be sidetracked into discussing this - jut refer to it briefly, reference the detailed article and move on. The US has opposed the ICC ever since the Rome Statute was signed. They may have supported it before that, and even contributed positively to the negotiations but they ended up voting against the adoption. They only signed as a tactical move so they could participate in the discussions on the rules of the court. I reiterate: the United States is critical of the court. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kissinger, undue weight?

The following section deals exclusively with one persons views on the court:

The Risk of Universal Judicial Tyranny
Henry Kissinger expressed concern that: "Widespread agreement that human rights violations and crimes against humanity must be prosecuted has hindered active consideration of the proper role of international courts. Universal jurisdiction risks creating universal tyranny -- that of judges." ..."The danger lies in pushing the effort to extremes that risk substituting the tyranny of judges for that of governments; historically, the dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to inquisitions and even witch-hunts."[81] Kenneth Roth replied: "Henry Kissinger's criticisms of universal jurisdiction are misplaced and overblown. His alternative to a global "tyranny of judges" would mean impunity for the real tyrants."[82]

The substantive points appear to be covered in the previous sections, although worded differently. Shouldn't this just be included in the relevant section/s?

By having a section just for Kissinger are we giving WP:Undue weight to one person's views?

I have not reverted yet because I wanted to hear others' views first AndrewRT(Talk) 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no objection to editing that preserves this attempt to bring the article toward a NPOV. I like the balancing quotes, and feel that these briefly summarize the debate - and attain a NPOV.
  • The response of Human Rights Watch establishes that Henry Kissinger is speaking for a significant view, they would not have adressed his comments otherwise.
  • Henry Kissinger earlier is quoted on a seperate issue. 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I should not have to point out that the fact that Kissinger is quoted elsewhere does not in any way undermine AndrewRT's point. If anything, it reinforces what he's saying.
You constantly refer to “attaining a NPOV” but it is perfectly clear that your only aim is to remove any material you think reflects badly on the United States, and fill the article with spurious criticisms of the Court. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No, only to remove material that is factually incorrect, or was taken out of context, or whatever. I thank you when you properly correct my errors, and I assume that you edit in good faith.
As for "spurious criticisims", you have indeed hit upon a theme that we revisit often. You often believe that I have aded "spurious material", and in some cases you have been correct. You have often deleted what you view to be "spurious" because you disagree with it, sometimes calling it "stupid" or some similarly rude remark. Deletion is your editorial right when the text is not supported by a "reliable source". The problem is that you have often deleted text supported by reliable sources without discussion, because it was "stupid". In other words Sideshow Bob Roberts, you appear to be on a POV campaign. To be eligible for inclusion of an ICC criticism, you seem to demand that you agree with any criticisim of the ICC. You don't get to pass on the validity, nor do I, assuming that a reliable source makes a criticism, it is eligible until a CONSENSUS supports deletion.
  • As for Kissenger being over-represented, why not just suggest an alternative reliable source to replace him? I'm open to this. Since you are silent on "The response of Human Rights Watch establishes that Henry Kissinger is speaking for a significant view, they would not have adressed his comments otherwise," may I presume that you agree on this point. If there is a significant view that the first Kissinger quote needs to go, fine I will handle this replacement. Is this something people want me to do? Raggz 23:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch appears more than once as well. Does anyone have a concern about their prominence in the article? WP:Undue weight

Every other section deals with a solid definable criticism of the court; this section discusses quotes Kissinger on a vague rhetorical point with an equally rhetorical answer. What exactly is said by either one that is not said above? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Raggz, your assertion that I’m ‘on a POV campaign’ is dishonest and entirely without foundation. I have absolutely no problem with criticism of the ICC: in fact, it was I who created the ‘Criticisms’ section and it was I who originally added all the stuff currently in the article about ‘Potential for politically motivated prosecutions’, ‘Lack of due process’, ‘Interference with national reconciliation processes’ and ‘Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court’[1].
I enthusiastically welcome the addition of new criticisms of the ICC, provided they are notable, accurate and well sourced. It is not true that I censor criticisms I disagree with — in fact, I disagree with all the stuff about politically motivated prosecutions and the lack of due process but I added it to the article because these are very common criticisms which are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature, so they appear to meet the notability threshold.
Kissinger’s comments about ‘universal tyranny’ do not appear to be notable. If you are correct in your claim that his comments reflect a ‘significant view’, then you should have no problem finding a reliable source to support this.
(Note that, while I’ve used quotes by Kissinger and the Heritage Foundation, I don’t for one minute consider these to be reliable sources. Unlike most other sources used in this article, neither of these papers appears to have been peer-reviewed so any criticism that appears only in these sources probably doesn't meet Wikipedia’s attribution standards. The only reason I’ve quoted these sources in the past is because I thought they expressed eloquently criticisms that appear frequently in the literature.)
I’m not trying to push any POV here. If you look at my edit history, you’ll notice that my contributions have, if anything, probably generally been critical of the Court. It’s only in the past few weeks that I’ve tended towards removing material that’s critical of the Court, and that’s only because you’ve been adding inappropriate material in a brazen attempt to paint the Court in a negative light — ‘on a POV campaign’, as it were.
Finally, you’re wrong to take my silence on your HRW comment as agreement. It is incorrect to suggest that just because Human Rights Watch saw fit to respond to Kissinger, his comments must be notable enough for inclusion in this article. Human Rights Watch have produced thousands of pages of material on the ICC but this article is only a few thousand words long so obviously our notability threshold must be much higher than theirs. We can’t just repeat everything bad anyone’s ever said about the Court, nor should we. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The academic journal published both articles in the same issue so that their readers could read the two arguments and weigh them. These articles were intended to appear together. Why should we exclude relevant material only because it is critical? You have slowly and methodically deleted every criticism that was present here in June, and almost all were supported by a relaiable source. Raggz (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Global Hedgemony and the EU

There has been criticism that the EU is using the ICC to advance it's global policy objectives and to establish it's cultural and legal standards as global standards.[2] We can use articles like this to balance the Article 98 material we might add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs)

I agree. There have been similar complaints from Africa - using the ICC to impose white European justice on black Africans. I'll try to dig out a quote to support this AndrewRT(Talk) 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interesting one [2] from L'Observateur Paalga in Burkina Faso: "...the Rome Statute seems to be concerned only with Africa's dirty laundry; as an example, the case of sexual crimes in CAR is the fourth opened by the ICC, following DRC, Uganda and Darfur (Sudan); these developments imply that somehow Africa has a monopoly on the commission of barbaric crimes....In the meanwhile, the focus is on Ange Félix Patassé, Jean Pierre Bemba, Hussein Habré, Joseph Kony, but tomorrow Omar al Bashir and Robert Mugabe are almost sure to be the target of the ICC and the other international tribunals and courts that are not even allowed to prosecute a single American citizen, or at least hear them as witnesses..."
It's not strictly true of course because Milosevic, the Khmer Rouge and Pinochet have also been targets of international justice. Nevertheless the perception matters. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've read this criticism before but didn't think it notable enough to mention in the article. It's a pretty lame argument which falls apart when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny. The ICC didn't choose DRC, Uganda, Darfur and CAR as the focus of its first investigations: the Security Council referred the situation in Darfur, and the other three situations were referred by their respective governments. As these are the only referrals the Court has received to date, I think your source is being slightly dishonest (or perhaps just ill-informed) when he says “depuis son entrée en vigueur, cette institution semble se préoccuper uniquement des draps sales africains”. (Where did you get the English translation, by the way? I can't find it.) Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
“This is ‘not a question of picking on Africa,’ says John Washburn of the American NGO Coalition for the ICC. ‘The UN Security Council referred [Darfur], and the other countries came forward voluntarily.’” [3] Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over citizens of non-member countries

The article currently states:

There is broad acceptance of the principle that a citizen of a first country who commits a crime in a second country may always be tried and sentenced in the second country, and, in limited circumstances, may be tried by the first country under extra-territorial laws. The International Criminal Court uses this principle to extend its jurisdiction to crimes committed in the territory of a member-country by someone who is a national of a non-state party. However critics of the court have contested this interpretation, claiming that this right to prosecute a non-national is "non-delegable". [85]

I can’t find the word ‘non-delegable’ in the source. What gives? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Caught out I'm afraid. I'll dig out the quote from Condi (which puts it better than the source) and add it in. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

The following information was deleted:

There are four methods by which a case may reach the ICC:[3]
1. A state party refers the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the Court's jurisdiction refers the case;
3. The United Nations Security Council refers the case; or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the ICC Prosecutor.

I'm not clear on why it was deleted. The editor said the section was "unnecessary, method #2 was wrong, and the source was dubious".

Why is it unnecessary? I don't see this information covered in the article elsewhere and it seems like a fairly basic piece of information that can only be gleaned from going though the Statute with a fine-tooth comb.

As for #2 being wrong, I would direct attention to Article 12, particularly sub-Article (3), which allows this procedure to take place.

I agree with the dubiousness of the citation. But shouldn't the information be restored with a better citation? –SESmith 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No. 2 was wrong: there are only three ways a case can "reach" the Court (referral by a state party, referral by the Security Council, and initiation by the prosecutor). Art 12 (3) allows non-states parties to make declarations accepting the ICC's jurisdiction, but it doesn't allow non-states parties to "refer" situations. (Referrals are dealt with in Article 13.)
Even if we correct the information and attribute it to a reliable source, I don't think it's particularly useful to the reader, since the Prosecutor's power to initiate investigations pretty much renders the other two methods superfluous (apart from the jurisdictional effects of Security Council referrals, which are already dealt with elsewhere in the article).
I could be persuaded though. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on #2. I suppose it might be a little pedantic or redundant to include this information, but I can see it as being a basic question people researching the ICC might have. We'll see what others think. –SESmith 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The ICC prosecutor's webpage says that there are only two ways are #1 and #3 above. I rely upon this source. Raggz 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No it does not say "that there are only two ways are #1 and #3 above." It says
" The Prosecutor may start an investigation upon referral of situations in which there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes have been or are being committed. Such referrals must be made by a State Party or the Security Council of the United Nations, acting to address a threat to international peace and security. In accordance with the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Prosecutor must evaluate the material submitted to him before making the decision on whether to proceed.
In addition to State Party and Security Council referrals, the Prosecutor may also receive information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court provided by other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations. The Prosecutor conducts a preliminary examination of this information in every case. If the Prosecutor then decides that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he will request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise an investigation." diran 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


Congrats, the article passed Wikipedia:Good article criteria with flying colors. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the Criticism section

I think we should remove the Criticism section and move each of the criticisms to the appropriate part of the article, per Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure.

Before I'm accused again of trying to censor criticisms, note that I don't want to delete any criticisms from the article: I just think the article will flow much better if these things are discussed in the appropriate sections rather than lumped together at the bottom of the article. It makes far more sense to discuss the Indian government's concerns about weapons of mass destruction in the Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court section than anywhere else. Similarly, anyone reading the section on Rights of the accused will want to hear the Heritage Foundation's concerns — they shouldn't have to get to the end of the article to find this discussion.

I originally created the criticism section because I thought it would help readers understand why the US government and others oppose the court. In retrospect, this was a terrible idea: this structure doesn't really shed any light on why people oppose the court but, as Jimbo suggested, the criticism section has become a troll magnet. If readers want a summary of, say, the US government's concerns about the Court, they can just follow the links from the article to the US State Department website or the United States and the International Criminal Court article.

Any objections? Sideshow Bob Roberts 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The concept has merit. I will support an additional WP article that is linked to this one. Presently this article does not have a NPOV. The section in question is used for this purpose. To eliminate it will further distort the NPOV here. So, how might we improve NPOV policy compliance, and make this article more concise?
For example, the US really doesn't need to be in this article at all, unless the editors desire to open a contentious debate. Why is it in the article? So do we want to edit this article to preclude contentious debate - or not? Do we want to attain a more NPOV?
For example the deleted CNN transcript where it is suggested that the Statute might be constitutional in the US has snuck back in - even though this citation does not support the editors language at all. The US Constitution does not extend a right to a jury trial to military trials; this and many basic human rights are limited when applied to the military. The citation correctly says that members of the Armed Forces lack this right. Our article mistakenly suggests that civilians do not have a right to a jury trial. Read the actual text below - it is clear that an editor is using his citation quite incorrectly to advance a pov. This was discussed prior, the citation removed, but it crept back in. There is some truth to the notion that this section is a "troll magnet". This is why I support moving the pov stuff to another article. It is not necessary here.

"The U.S. position, of course, has been we've negotiated for many years in support of creating this permanent court. These are crimes we felt, should be brought before the court for prosecution, and we believe the Rome statute is very, very close to achieving that objective. We think there is a small but very, very important gap that still needs to be filled, and we're working very hard...

VAN SUSTEREN: Which is?

SCHEFFER: It's a gap that would expose particularly the armed forces of non-state parties, in other words countries that have not yet joined the court, to the actual full jurisdiction of the court, without those governments actually agreeing to be bound by this treaty and by the rules of the court.

SCHEFFER: Well, we're not intimidated by the prospect of our soldiers conduct being put under scrutiny for compliance with the laws of war. We have a very long tradition of trying to enforce the laws of war within our military court systems. And occasionally there will be mistakes or other rogue elements that take place, even within our armed forces, that have to be dealt with by our military court system. And we have great confidence in that military court system.

COSSACK: It's not our military -- it's not the United States' military court system that I'm asking about. It's about turning over jurisdiction to some other court to judge United States troops.

SCHEFFER: Well, the Rome treaty has been negotiated such that if there were to be charges or investigations launched against American armed forces, there is an opportunity for the American government to step in under a rule called complementarity and snatch that investigation away and conduct it domestically ourselves so that we can investigate these problems ourselves.

Why are we opening this discussion, why is the US relevant to the ICC?
It seems a good idea. So, do we want to edit this article to preclude contentious debate - or not? If not, the section should stay. Raggz 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Since no-one's offered any reason for keeping the criticisms together in one section, I've moved them around.[4] I think this is a huge improvement but I'm not entirely happy with the outcome and I'd appreciate some feedback — maybe someone could cast a critical eye over the Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Rights of the accused and Amnesties and national reconciliation processes sections? Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just re-read the article after being away from it for a while. I think this rearrangement and pruning contributes considerably to improving the article. For the first time it now reads like a encyclopaedia entry, rather than the minutes of a student debating society, or an account of the proceedings of the UN General Assembly. Well done.diran 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is more readable, a plus. On the other hand all criticisms of the ICC were deleted and were not moved to other sections as Sideshow Bob Roberts proposed. Might we able to edit the article to give the reader an insight into the many criticisms? Raggz (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That's completely untrue. If you look at the diff (here), you'll see that no criticisms were deleted. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Initiating investigations

The article currently states:

The prosecutor can inititate a preliminary investigation in three circumstances:
* Upon referral from a member country
* Upon referral from the United Nations Security Council
* Where information is provided from other sources including individuals
In all cases the prosecutor must first conduct a preliminary examination and then apply to a pre-trial chamber of judges for permission to start an investigation.

This is incorrect. The Prosecutor only needs to obtain authorisation from the Pre-Trial Chamber when he's acting proprio motu, under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. Where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council, the Prosecutor doesn't have to obtain permission.

Unfortunately, the ICC website (which the article cites as a source for this information) does not make this clear. The sentence "If the Prosecutor then decides that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he will request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise an investigation" could easily be understood to refer to all investigations, not just those where the Prosecutor is acting on the basis of information received by other sources. (I've also read others interpret the statute this way, including the American Bar Association (.doc file).)

Nonetheless, this interpretation is clearly wrong. The Pre-Trial Chamber didn't issue its first decision until 17 February 2005, by which time the Prosecutor had already opened formal investigations into the situations in Uganda and the DRC. He was able to open these investigations without authorisation from the Pre-Trial Chamber because these situations were referred to him by States Parties.

Dozens of reliable, published sources explicitly state that judicial authorisation is not required where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council. See, for example:

  • Christopher Keith Hall: "The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity". Leiden Journal of International Law (2004), 17: 121-139;
  • Michela Miraglia: "The First Decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber". J Int Criminal Justice 2006; 4: 188-195; or
  • Annie Wartanian: "The ICC Prosecutor's Battlefield: Combating Atrocities While Fighting for States' Cooperation. Lessons from the U.N. Tribunals Applied to the Case of Uganda". Georgetown Journal of International Law 36 no4 1289-316 Summ 2005 (which is free to read here).

Does anyone object to changing this? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not I. Your legal expertise when engaged, rarely fails to illuminate. Thank you for correcting my error. I didn't follow your explanation fully, but as long as you are certain that the ICC Prosecutor may investigate the Iraq War without referral from a State Party, I'm fine.Raggz 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of member states

Chad should be green. It's probably a very simple thing to fix but it's beyond me. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (kept)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 09:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fairness

This article contains the following criticism:

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

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

According to Human Rights Watch:

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

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

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

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

Amnesties

I've reverted most of this edit, which I think is pretty misleading. Firstly, it suggests that amnesties violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, neither of these documents explicitly calls for individual criminal prosecution of human rights abusers. If anyone wants to suggest that amnesties violate the UDHR or the ICCPR, please cite a reliable, published source who says this.

Secondly, the editor cites three documents from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch ([5],[6],[7]) but misreports what they say. (For example, I couldn't find where these sources "argue that the granting of blanket amnesties for extreme human rights violations [...] abuses the rights of victims".)

If people want to expand this section, let's stick to what our sources actually say, and not publish our own analysis. After all, there are loads of reliable, peer-reviewed papers about blanket amnesties, impunity, and the ICC, so there's no reason for us to say anything that's not explicitly supported by a source. Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ICC effectivness to date

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

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

Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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.