Talk:International Criminal Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Criminal Court article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

See also Talk:International Criminal Court/Archive.

Contents 1 Prosecutor's consideration of War crimes in connection with invasion of Iraq 2 Move most of the US objections 3 Belgian war crimes law 4 US exemption 5 Status of US signature of ICC statute 6 US again 7 number of article 98 agreements 8 US objection - jury 9 US objections 10 From the objections section 11 Contradiction in article 12 Moved from article 13 Alleged Iranian incitement to genocide 14 US Opposition / ICC incompatible with U.S. Constitution 15 Apology 16 US Objections - new article? 17 U.S. attempts to undermine the ICC 18 Potential State Parties 19 US objections 20 Argument for U.S. objections 21 victims participation 22 Zimbabwe criticisms 23 Cleanup

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Moved from article

Request article on internationnal criminal court procedures

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. 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. Nomen Nescio 11:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How about his:

U.S. protectionism contravenes the ICC

Not perfect, but what do you think? 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. Nomen Nescio 15:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your inputs. AndrewRT 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)