World leaders could face prosecution for acts of state aggression — potentially including the invasion of Iraq — under calls for the International Criminal Court to extend its powers.
Britain and the US are among nations wary of such a move. The change would make “manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations” an indictable offence at the court, which currently prosecutes those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
[...]
Adding the crime of state aggression to the ICC’s remit “would be a significant step forward in the development of international law and an important extension of the court’s jurisdiction”, said Christian Wenaweser, president of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC, meeting in the Ugandan capital.He added that the Security Council should be the first body to determine whether state aggression had taken place. Some pressure groups think that this would compromise the court’s independence. While the definition of what constitutes an act of aggression has been hotly contested, the key is who decides when the criteria are met.Human Rights Watch said that it had “long opposed control of any crime within the court’s jurisdiction by external bodies because it would undermine the ICC’s judicial independence”.
what about Mexico’s invasion of the US? will they rule on that and stop it?
UN Security Council is a pointless and cowardly bureaucracy.
P shows the common grasp of the functionality of the UN. It is as pointless and cowardly as the USA will allow which is the POINT of this topic. Obama won’t even go after BushCo==how in the world would he allow “foreigners” to indict himself, his team, or even the last team, and neither will other memebers of the security counsel.
So -BY CHOICE- the UN is kept weak and a punching bag for those with the insight of P.
Its really also why George Washington was such a great leader. He stepped away from power. Few can manage that.
Problem: The ICC would not be under the authority of the Constitution. US citizens have rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution. Therefore no court has authority over a US citizen except for courts set up under the Constitution of the United States.
#3 – No, it’s not as cowardly as the US will allow. The US has been pushing for action against North Korea and Iran for years, but to no avail.
The UN has completely lost its teeth, assuming it ever had any to begin with.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. None will be able to travel to the United Nations any more.
This international criminal court is run by the same United Nations that elected Iran to the U.N. Commission on Women’s Rights?
Another great idea from the liberal elite.
Benjamin -
You are saying that a citizen of a country can only be prosecuted under the laws of his country and by their own country.
Suppose a US citizen in the USA commits an attack on a foreign country… according to you he is subject to prosecution only under US law, and the foreign country has no right to prosecute the US citizen.
Now suppose that a non-US citizen commits an attack on the USA from their own foreign country. According to your logic, they are only subject to the laws and constitution of their own country, and the US has no right to go after them. That would make Osama Bin-laden immune to US prosecution, him being only subject to Saudi laws as a Saudi citizen (or whatever nationality he is).
So there has to be some method for countries to address criminal actions that take place internationally, hence the need for international law and international tribunals.
Yeah right just what the world needs more institutional justification of the unjustifiable. War is wrong . (PERIOD) It’s like an illness the human race never seems to cure. A drain on our resources and a threat to our survival. And the madness continues, our leaders tell us who to fear and why and off we go sending our most precious blood, human sacrifices and martyrs in the name of the madness of war. Think about it, exactly how many nations have nukes? The club continues to grow, so much so, that a serious accounting of all the nuclear weapons is now impractical if not impossible. With every passing year nuclear war becomes more probable, until it reaches certainty. What happens when the world’s fuel supply runs out or some natural disaster effects the entire planet?
The end is coming.
If this were to succeed, which I _strongly doubt_, it would limit the US war machine to its claimed purpose, defense of the mainland, rather than its actual purpose which is entirely geopolitical. Of course, a monopoly of control over oil regions and routes could be considered defensive, just not in the way that “defense” is typically sold to the ignorati as “protection from ‘tourism,’ especially with “nukulur” weapons” as dipshit Dubya’ would have put it, with Obama now making the same claim, just pronounced correctly.
“Britain and the US are among nations wary of such a move”
Gee, I wonder why. Could it be that these 2 countries are the most egregious examples of illegal invasions of foreign soil? Say it ain’t so.
The UN is like its predecessor the League of Nations.
Useless, powerless and a farce.
Cursor_
please cite these “illegal invasions” you speak of zybch
# 12 Cursor_ said, The UN is like its predecessor the League of Nations.”
Sadly, you’re wrong. The UN is still around slurping up money and shitting out self-righteous bureaucracy as it grows larger and larger. The League of Nations had the good sense to wither and die.
This is all very predictable. The smaller, weaker countries want some protection from the larger and more powerful countries. The large and powerful countries want to be able to do what they want without limitations. Gee I wonder who will win?
#13 The obvious reply to your question is Iraq. After that, it depends on how far you go back.
I have no problems with indicting a previous leader of ours for sending our armed forces into such a dishonourable action. We were supposed to be the good guys…
The UN should be disbanded. It serves no purpose other then looking stupid every time it does anything.
So when Iran finally nukes Israel, the ICC is going to prosecute the leader of Iran? Oooh. I bet he is shaking in his boots.
#9 Do we really want to get in a situation where we prosecute out service members for fighting to defend our freedoms. Then we will have no freedom.
#17 I agree. The UN is an organization whose sole mission is to hate on the US and Israel; coddle dictators; and lose billions of dollars to graft.
#19 Benjamin –
>>Do we really want to get in a situation where we prosecute out service members for fighting to defend our freedoms.
Yes. I see no problem in having a recognized international tribunal, in which the United States participates, being able to hold members of the military (and their leadership) of ANY country accountable for their conduct. And given the perversion of our own ‘military’, where over 70% is composed of civilians that are not accountable to the UCMJ or in many cases to no other laws whatsoever, we need independent third party tribunals to keep the system honest in case our own leadership will not do so.