"I have been given the impression that some of its boundaries are in conflict with the boundaries of the rights afforded to citizens of the USA under the Constitution and derived Supreme Court decisions."
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but my responce would be "whoopdee-fucking-doo". Does it matter what rights the US gives its citizens? There are countries in the Muslim world where intense discrimination against women is not only legal, but encouraged. Would you say that, since those rights are grnated by one country, they should be considered legal everywhere by this international court.
If multiple countries are going to come up w/ a single legal system, there are going to be disputes. The US doesn't have a free pass to win every single one of those arguements. The US Constitution applies to the US and the US only. Anywhere else in the world, it's so much scrap paper.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The US Constitution applies to the US and the US only. Anywhere else in the world, it's so much scrap paper.
Exactly the problem.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Was that directed at me, or just a generally sarcastic statement?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Suddenly the idea of a World Government doesn't seem so bad, eh?
Only if its ours, not theirs.
There are countries in which most of the rules of law, such as 'due process' and 'no torture' are laughable concepts, as well.
Reducing something to the lowest common denominator may be fine in math, but it positively SUCKS as a legal concept. If the court is only as strong as its weakest member, legally speaking, it's worse than having no court at all.
But if you want to start trying people according to, say, Fundie Muslim justice, I suppose that's okay... we won't miss any of those prisoners in Guantanamo, anyway. *Ratatatatatatatatat* Trial over.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, since the ICC is illegal, according to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, its first duty should be to disband itself.
According to articles 12 and 25 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court shall extend to individual United States citizens even if the United States does not `ratify, accept, or approve' the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
According to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no nation may be bound by a treaty to which that nation has not consented; therefore the United States, which has not consented to the Statute of the International Criminal Court in the manner prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, cannot be bound by the Statute of the International Criminal Court even if 60 countries ratify, accept, or approve it.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps, but what crimes but war crimes can such a court try? And who can commit war crimes but military personel? That makes things slightly more sticky.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: And who can commit war crimes but military personel?
Why don't you track down a random address in, say, Dubrovnik, call the person up, and ask them this question?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by Omega: And who can commit war crimes but military personel?
I would greatly argue that point. Wiesenthal's people hunted for decades for Mengele & others who were part of the Nazi extermination efforts, yet held no official military titles or rank. Is Osama bin Laden ineligible for such crimes? What about Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, who headed the 93 WTC bombing? In Rwanda, those massacres were not based in the military but rather tribal, literally tearing the nation in half.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The question about a nation being bound by a treaty it did not sign is an interesting question...
It's my understanding that people visiting a foreign country are bound by that country's laws. Therefore, if a war crime were committed in a country that had signed on to the ICC, could the alleged perpetrator not be tried by the ICC?
On the other hand, foreign embassies still have a measure of power in other countries, and citizens traveling in those countries have recourse to the local embassy or consulate.
Damn, I don't think I want to be an international lawyer... I participated in the Model UN's International Court of Justice for four years in high school but this is a really tough question.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Despite the usual Flameboard gloss, or perhaps grime, these are interesting questions. Consider: in your typical representative democracy, there are going to be laws that sizable majorites may wish to have no part in. They did not vote for them, nor did they vote for the people who made them, or even for the creation of the office for the people who made them. So at what point does it become necessary for me to follow laws I disagree with? Or, more importantly and more interestingly, at how does the necessity come about at all? Where, in other words, is the source of our obligation to obeying the law?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
I'd argue that the obligation comes from the ability & willingness of said lawmakers to enforce it. Adultery is illegal in pretty much every state, but when was the last time you saw someone pulled in for balling his secretary? Sodomy is still illegal in many southern states, yet there are no nightly roundup of those who possess Metropasses for the man-train.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
