Join 3,501 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The International Criminal Court
April 11, 2002 12:49 PM   Subscribe

The International Criminal Court is now a reality after a group of 10 countries signed the treaty at a ceremony at the U.N. today, bringing the number of signatories to 66. According to Kofi Annan "the missing link in the international justice system is now in place," but without the participation of the U.S., Russia or China, how effective can it be?
posted by homunculus (7 comments total)

 
In related sort of news (in that prosecuting these folk would be a good use of the ICC), it looks like the US is building a permanent jail for those it accuses of terrorism. These folk will be held indefinately, with no recourse to the law, contrary to the terms of the Geneva Convention. For someone with more chops than me, this might make a good FPP.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2002


I for one, never thought the US, Russia or China would sign this. After all, One of their soldiers could get caught on a secret mission in another country. How would these countries let their men caught in the line of duty (read, meddeling by force in other's business) be brought to an International Court and testify to what mission they were on.

Totally hypocritic of the Big Three. It would atleast eliminate the need of special military courts.
posted by adnanbwp at 2:53 PM on April 11, 2002


five fresh fish : very interesting link, thanks. Its so ironic. While the Bush government has held no stone unturned in order to authenticate this as a WAR, they do not grant their prisoners the right status of POWs.
posted by adnanbwp at 2:56 PM on April 11, 2002


too bad america didn't sign up, not that we are fans of any sort of international law... apperantly we don't want to sign it because bush is scared people in our army will be tried for war crimes... that's fantastic
posted by rhyax at 3:02 PM on April 11, 2002


i hope, at some point, to be proud of something the us government does that's not in history books.
posted by rhyax at 3:06 PM on April 11, 2002


Perhaps if the ICC is now managed by the signatory countries in a manner which proves it is going to be handled fairly and not as a Great Balancer against superpowers, the larger powers will feel more comfortable participating. Unfortunately, events like the Durban conference on selectively-defined racism suggest one route by which this could devolve into farce.
posted by dhartung at 7:50 PM on April 11, 2002


Any and all arguments about the ICC and the US are meaningless. The ICC is fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution, which says that US citizens can be held accountable to no higher power than the federal government. It wouldn't matter even if the Senate ever did ratify it, which it won't; the Supreme Court would overturn it and that would be the end of that.
posted by aaron at 8:53 AM on April 12, 2002


« Older TheraDate...  |  A 401(k) is not a Pension!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments