Inauguration of International Criminal Court

[hiphop]

From

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites.htm

http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html

----------------

Today in The Hague, the Secretary-General attended the solemn inaugural ceremony for the International Criminal Court, at which the Court?s first 18 judges took the oath of office. He said, ?It has taken mankind many years to reach this moment.? He asserted that the 11 men and seven women who were sworn in today as the Court?s first judges ?have made themselves the embodiment of our collective conscience.?

He told the judges that the honesty and efficiency of the Court?s administration must be beyond reproach, and he also told States Parties that, in the near future, they must choose a prosecutor for the Court.

He added, ?The commitment shown thus far augurs well for the future.? The High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello, commenting on the Court, said today is a historic milestone reaffirming the commitment to human rights, fundamental freedoms and justice.

Immediately after the 18 judges were sworn in, they conferred in what was their first private meeting as a Court, and decided to elect Philippe Kirsch of Canada as their first President. Two vice presidents were also elected, judges Elizabeth Odio Benito and Erkki Kourula.

------------------------

http://www.un.org/law/icc/general/overview.htm

OVERVIEW


It has been 50 years since the United Nations first recognized the need to establish an international criminal court, to prosecute crimes such as genocide. In resolution 260 of 9 December 1948, the General Assembly, "Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required", adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article I of that convention characterizes genocide as "a crime under international law", and article VI provides that persons charged with genocide "shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction . . ." In the same resolution, the General Assembly also invited the International Law Commission "to study the desirability and possibility of establishing an international judicial organ for the trial of persons charged with genocide . . ."

Following the Commission's conclusion that the establishment of an international court to try persons charged with genocide or other crimes of similar gravity was both desirable and possible, the General Assembly established a committee to prepare proposals relating to the establishment of such a court. The committee prepared a draft statute in 1951 and a revised draft statute in 1953. The General Assembly, however, decided to postpone consideration of the draft statute pending the adoption of a definition of aggression.

Since that time, the question of the establishment of an international criminal court has been considered periodically. In December 1989, in response to a request by Trinidad and Tobago, the General Assembly asked the International Law Commission to resume work on an international criminal court with jurisdiction to include drug trafficking. Then, in 1993, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia erupted, and war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide -- in the guise of "ethnic cleansing" -- once again commanded international attention. In an effort to bring an end to this widespread human suffering, the UN Security Council established the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to hold individuals accountable for those atrocities and, by so doing, deter similar crimes in the future.

Shortly thereafter, the International Law Commission successfully completed its work on the draft statute for an international criminal court and in 1994 submitted the draft statute to the General Assembly. To consider major substantive issues arising from that draft statute, the General Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, which met twice in 1995. After the General Assembly had considered the Committee's report, it created the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court to prepare a widely acceptable consolidated draft text for submission to a diplomatic conference. The Preparatory Committee, which met from 1996 to 1998, held its final session in March and April of 1998 and completed the drafting of the text.

"In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished."

-- Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General


(...)

An international criminal court has been called the missing link in the international legal system. The International Court of Justice at The Hague handles only cases between States, not individuals. Without an international criminal court for dealing with individual responsibility as an enforcement mechanism, acts of genocide and egregious violations of human rights often go unpunished. In the last 50 years, there have been many instances of crimes against humanity and war crimes for which no individuals have been held accountable. In Cambodia in the 1970s, an estimated 2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge. In armed conflicts in Mozambique, Liberia, El Salvador and other countries, there has been tremendous loss of civilian life, including horrifying numbers of unarmed women and children. Massacres of civilians continue in Algeria and the Great Lakes region of Africa.

(...)

"From now on, all potential warlords must know that, depending on how a conflict develops, there might be established an international tribunal before which those will be brought who violate the laws of war and humanitarian law. . . . Everyone must now be presumed to know the contents of the most basic provisions of international criminal law; the defence that the suspects were not aware of the law will not be permissible."
-- Hans Corell, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs


Most perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity throughout history have gone unpunished. In spite of the military tribunals following the Second World War and the two recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, the same holds true for the twentieth century. That being said, it is reasonable to conclude that most perpetrators of such atrocities have believed that their crimes would go unpunished. Effective deterrence is a primary objective of those working to establish the international criminal court. Once it is clear that the international community will no longer tolerate such monstrous acts without assigning responsibility and meting outappropriate punishment -- to heads of State and commanding officers as well as to the lowliest soldiers in the field or militia recruits -- it is hoped that those who would incite a genocide; embark on a campaign of ethnic cleansing; murder, rape and brutalize civilians caught in an armed conflict; or use children for barbarous medical experiments will no longer find willing helpers.

 

[hiphop]

Go watch who has signed and ratificated it...

http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp

---------------

http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp#N6

On 6 November 1998, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United States of America the following communication dated 5 November 1998, relating to the proposed corrections to the Statute circulated on 25 September 1998:

"[...] The United States wishes to note a number of concerns and objections regarding the procedure proposed for the correction of the six authentic texts and certified true copies:

"First, the United States wishes to draw attention to the fact that, in addition to the corrections which the Secretary-General now proposes, other changes had already been made to the text which was actually adopted by the Conference, without any notice or procedure. The text before the Conference was contained in A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76 and Adds. 1-13. The text which was issued as a final document, A/CONF.183/9, is not the same text. Apparently, it was this latter text which was presented for signature on July 18, even though it differed in a number of respects from the text that was adopted only hours before. At least three of these changes are arguably substantive, including the changes made to Article 12, paragraph 2(b), the change made to Article 93, paragraph 5, and the change made to Article 124. Of these three changes, the Secretary-General now proposes to "re-correct" only Article 124, so that it returns to the original text, but the other changes remain. The United States remains concerned, therefore, that the corrections process should have been based on the text that was actually adopted by the Conference.

" Second, the United States notes that the Secretary-General's communication suggests that it is "established depositary practice" that only signatory States or contracting States may object to a proposed correction. The United States does not seek to object to any of the proposed corrections, or to the additional corrections that were made earlier and without formal notice, although this should not be taken as an endorsement of the merits of any of the corrections proposed. The United States does note, however, that insofar as arguably substantive changes have been made to the original text without any notice or procedure, as noted above in relation to Articles 12 and 93, if any question of interpretation should subsequently arise it should be resolved consistent with A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76, the text that was actually adopted.

"More fundamentally, however, as a matter of general principle and for future reference, the United States objects to any correction procedure, immediately following a diplomatic conference, whereby the views of the vast majority of the Conference participants on the text which they have only just adopted would not be taken into account. The United States does not agree that the course followed by the Secretary-General in July represents "established depositary practice" for the type of circumstances presented here. To the extent that such a procedure has previously been established, it must necessarily rest on the assumption that the Conference itself had an adequate opportunity, in the first instance, to ensure the adoption of a technically correct text. Under the circumstances which have prevailed in some recent conferences, and which will likely recur, in which critical portions of the text are resolved at very late stages and there is no opportunity for the usual technical review by the Drafting Committee, the kind of corrections process which is contemplated here must be open to all.

" In accordance with Article 77, paragraph 1 (e) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the United States requests that this note be communicated to all States which are entitled to become parties to the Convention."

(...)

On 28 August 2002, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel, the following communication: ".....in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on 17 July 1998, [...] Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."


In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following:

"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."

 

[Scarletwine]

Bush's Imperalism and arrogance at work again. I'm really sorry the US didn't follow through on this Organization/Court.

 

[hiphop]

But what reason can there possible be to not ratificate a treaty like that? Ideas, anyone?

 

[DrTeeth]

Because some people in the White House live by the laws of economics and the military. They are already the strongest in that court, so why obligate yourself to something else?

 

[Klaus]

At least that's one point where G.W.Bush has the same position as Saddam Hussein, the iraqi dictator is also against the International Criminal Court.

Klaus

 

[Beefeater]

I love the 'soundbytes' involving 'Imperialism'.. It does nothing more than to show the individual's ignorance into what America is. What America does for this world, and what America means to this world. And it is sickening.

I refer you to Colin Powell's recent quote:

"Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? For the last hundred years in Germany, and Japan, and most recently in Africa, when America won a war, we did not seek to hold the land, The GI's put down their weapons and helped rebuild the country. WE HAVE ASKED FOR NOTHING EXCEPT ENOUGH GROUND TO BURY OUR DEAD IN."

Although you are blind to it, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

The International Court, much like the UN, and much like the Kyoto treaty is a joke, nothing more than to rip and shred at the Super Power status that America holds. I refer you to France's adamant 'anti-war' stance.. which is nothing about their opposition to the war, but a manifestation of jealousy and envy over power that once was, as well as a protection of their relationship of Peace for Oil with Iraq(Well documented), and their desperate desire to control the EU when it becomes a single body.

RE: Kyoto.. Just for your knowledge..
""Dateline Ottawa - Coniferous forests around the world may be emitting more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than traffic and industry combined, suggests a report in the prestigious journal Nature."

"Scotch pine needles release nitrogen oxides directly into the atmosphere when exposed to ultraviolet light," says the study by Finland's University of Helsinki. Canada is interested in this because the Kyoto accords required them to cut CO2, and they wanted to count the forests in their big and empty land as pollution "sinks."

Multi-Facited,
Beefeater

 

[hiphop]

The International Court, much like the UN, and much like the Kyoto treaty is a joke, nothing more than to rip and shred at the Super Power status that America holds.

Thank you for your post, its always about new insights.

I think, in your above statement, you must have missed that the United States played an important role in founding the UN after WWII, though.

 

[Klaus]

"Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? For the last hundred years in Germany, and Japan, and most recently in Africa, when America won a war, we did not seek to hold the land, The GI's put down their weapons and helped rebuild the country. WE HAVE ASKED FOR NOTHING EXCEPT ENOUGH GROUND TO BURY OUR DEAD IN."

They did ask for more - there are some places in Germany where no german ever was allowed to enter since Worldwar II, (Bad Aibling Echolon for example) but that's ok, we never complained about that. Just please don't ignore the facts.

The International Court, much like the UN, and much like the Kyoto treaty is a joke, nothing more than to rip and shred at the Super Power status that America holds. I refer you to France's adamant 'anti-war' stance.. which is nothing about their opposition to the war, but a manifestation of jealousy

The ICC is a great improvement for international right, it gives the UN more power, of course the week profit more from it than the strong ones who can enforce their right. But it's like a courthouse in your city, it's a great improvement and will reduce (international) crime.
Noone who cares about international right has to change his behaviour, so don't be afraid of justice.
Especially after 9/11 you should realize that Stealthbombers and even a SDI II can't protect your people as efficient as international laws and courts.

RE: Kyoto.. Just for your knowledge..
""Dateline Ottawa - Coniferous forests around the world may be emitting more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than traffic and industry combined, suggests a report in the prestigious journal Nature."

I missed the part that SUVs save the Rain forest. Seriousely.. this sounds like the studies which said that smoking dosn't cause lung cancer? Please give me a link to the complete scientific work and i'll love to analyze it.

Klaus

 

[Amna]

Well,
to bad the US feels the need to segregate itself from something it promoted in the first place... sheer hypocracy i tell you.

If the US had ever decided to sign and give in to the ICC, most of its self-interest goals would be shunned by the number of misdeeds it has commited to the int'l community...

I don't mean to put down the US. Its a great country and has many positives. however, it has a history of trying to promote the UN and at the same time shy away from Kyoto, ICC and ISC, just for the sake of covering up all the wrongs they have commited and (will)commit.

This is why so many people despise our administration....

I only wish that Clinton's admin. had passed in the sign., Clinton signed it, but everyone around him forced him not to send it through.... Where as Bush didn't even dear sign it... Just tells you how much of an arrogant fool Bush is. an arrogant fool and a woos.

 

[Amna]

Bush and Bushy's administration, that is.

 

[DrTeeth]

HOLY RESURRECTION BATMAN!!!