![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why not move this to it's own stubb? It should remain avaialable, but has no relvance to this article. Raggz 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states:
Sexual abuse and child prosecution are serious crimes, but they do not normally fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Unless a reliable source claims that UN personnel are suspected of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, and that the ICC has not responded appropriately, this entire section should go. Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states that the ICC lacks any enforcement capability. This is untrue: there are currently 104 states parties to the Rome Statute, all of whom are legally obliged to enforce the Court's rulings. In cases where the Security Council refers a situation to the Court, it is expected that the Security Council will take action to enforce the Court's rulings. There may be rare cases, such as the current situation in Uganda, where a non-state party refers a situation to the Court and then decides that it doesn't want to enforce the Court's decisions, but it is incorrect to say that the court lacks any enforcement capability. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It likely can be proven that the lack of war crimes enforcement at the UN is a tacit UN policy to avoid political embarassment, that "what happens in the Sudan stays in the Sudan". Is the UN exempt from war crimes prosecution by the ICC?
The following is partly OR and most will not apear in the article War Crimes:"In the context of war, a war crime is a punishable offense under international law, for violations of the laws of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime, while violations in internal conflicts are typically limited to the local jurisdiction. In essence, the term "war crime" represents the concept of an international jurisdiction as applicable to the most severe crimes, in areas where government is dysfunctional and society is in a state of turmoil." Actual international law is more complex than wikipedia law, but if we assume the above is correct the ICC has jurisdiction from (1) The UN Security Council (which may enhance ICC jurisdiction), (2) Over all war crimes in Somalia, (3) Over all troops from ICC members. (4) The ICC is "local law", (the local judge is quoted saying child rape is not being tried because the soldiers are men and must be enterained.) An ocupying force has Geneva Convention responsibilities.
Next we have command responsibility. The Commander is appointed by the UN and has command responsibility (liability). The UNSG stated that there was a problem and that it would get fixed (in 2004). IF the problem was covered up or neglected (as widely alleged), then command responsibility goes up to whatever level should have stoped the war crimes, or held the criminals internally responsible. The nation that lent the Commander cannot be liable.
Somalia doesn't want UN troops, the UN mission is technically an invasion of Somalia by foreign troops. The war has already been ruled inter-state anyway. This means in "wikilaw" that "Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime".
Is the ICC Prosecutor expected to ignore the potential effect upon the ICC if he investigates the UNSG and the UNSC national representatives for command responsibility war crimes? What if he just prosecutes low level field commanders only, will they still protect ICC personnel? My OR point is that the ICC prosecutor would be foolish to focus on investigating ANY UN war crimes, regardless of merit. The UN has impunity under international criminal law in fact, if not in theory. Raggz 01:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This source is a serious work, but fact checking might be questioned as it seems self-published. I added it anyway, because it helps maintain a NPOV and I don't have a better source to manage this. It is a serious scholarly self-published source. Feel free to delete it, if it seems unreliable. We can bend the rule for NPOV compliance - if we want to. Raggz 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
At present, the Criminal Impunity & ICC Prosecution section is the longest section in the article — almost as long as all the other criticisms put together. This is completely out of proportion to its importance.
Personally, I don't think this stuff merits a mention at all because the Prosecutor's decision is subject to scrutiny by the Pre-Trial Chamber. However, since at least one reliable source makes this criticism, I'm not inclined to delete it unless there's a consensus.
If we keep it, I think we should cut it down to one or two sentences at most. Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is very well written, and is very informative. I suggest making it a page rather than inclusion here. I believe it to be an authoratative statement of the limits of prosecutorial power from a legalistic pov. As many reliable sources state, there are legalistic concerns and political concerns. The ICC is very much a legal institution AND it is a political institution. One weakness of this section is that it is way too long. The more important is that it totally neglects the political issues related to ICC prosecutions.
Americans expect political influence over prosecutions. Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President and are legally fired for political causes. This recently happened. Local US prosecutors and judges are elected politicians, and properly are subject to community political pressures. ICC prosecutors and judges are not elected. In China, there is some evidence that politics enters into the justices system, as it does throughout most of the world. This section should reflect worldwide concerns about political input into prosecutorial discretion. Raggz 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new template for use at the bottom of some ICC-related articles:
International Criminal Court (ICC) | ||
Statute - States Parties - Judges - Cases | ||
---|---|---|
Crimes: | ||
Genocide - War crime - Crime against humanity - Crime of aggression | ||
Accused persons: | ||
Ahmed Haroun -
Joseph Kony -
Ali Kushayb -
Thomas Lubanga Raska Lukwiya - Okot Odhiambo - Dominic Ongwen - Vincent Otti | ||
Miscellaneous: | ||
United States and the ICC -
American Servicemembers' Protection Act The ICC and the 2003 invasion of Iraq - The ICC in popular culture |
Is this a bad idea? Please post any criticisms, suggestions, etc, to the template's talk page, not here. Thanks, Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This section was deleted, why? The war criminals in Darfur are still free. When asked, the ICC President stated that the ICC cannot enforce laws unless others cooperate. The HF stated this was a problem, an inability to enforce laws. Is there a good reason not to revert this? We never discussed deleting this, but it was deleted. Raggz 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted without discussion: "Some might be concerned that even one actual crime occured with impunity in Iraq, so the Prosecutor reassured those who are concerned that "the Office also collected information on national proceedings, including commentaries from various sources, and that national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents."
This is a direct quote from the ICC prosecutor, why was it deleted? 240 reports were received and investigated, and "national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents". Raggz 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have preferred to leave the US out of this article because the US has no present role with the ICC and will not until 2009. Other editors insist upon including the US, which from my pov means that we need to be fair and balanced in exactly how the US role is included.
The article has a misleading quote when it says: "According to David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference (and who voted against adoption of the treaty), “when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, ‘Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?’ And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test.” This quote either requires deletion, or work to put it into the context that the quote was offered to CNN. I would prefer deletion, as the context within US Constitutional law is complex, and providing this context would be an uneeded diversion into US law.
One basic human right guaranteed by the US Constitution is the right to never be forced to a trial before any judge. The US Constitution specifically exempts members of the Armed Forces, (which unlike those of Europe have generally reduced human rights legally). Ambassador Scheffer made his comments in the context of the compatibility of trial for members of the US Armed Forces and it is innappropriate to use them in any other context, as they are in our article.
The UCMJ does require what amounts to a small version of a jury trial. Defendendts do not appear before a judge, (except for very minor matters where confinement cannot be imposed). The three military-member panels must include an enlisted member if the ascused is not a military officer, this is to better create a jury of their peers, and in most ways these panels function as small juries. Do we want to get into detail about the UCMJ and US Constitutional law? If so, we can do that. If not, the quote in question needs to go.
David Scheffer holds the opinion that members of the US Armed Forces could be tried by a three judge panel, so it is a fair quote only in that context. I can of course, provide authoratative opinions in contrast. Is this what we want? Raggz 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Our article says "However, a number of states, including China, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined." The position of the United States Government may not be summarized by the single word "critical", so this sentence requires qualification. This qualification I view as an unneeded digression that would interfer rather than assist the Reader. Therefore I will delete this sentence because (1) it is contextually only partly accurate and (2) more than half of the nations of the world have not joined, so the focus on a few nations is unneeded, and (3) the concerns of China, India and the United States canot be summarized in one word, nor perhaps in one paragraph. Raggz 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Read this article - the US was a leader for the ICC [1] It suggests issues regarding criticisims of the ICC not yet included. We can include many of these with Article 98 discussions - or just not cover either POV? Raggz 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The following section deals exclusively with one persons views on the court:
The substantive points appear to be covered in the previous sections, although worded differently. Shouldn't this just be included in the relevant section/s?
By having a section just for Kissinger are we giving WP:Undue weight to one person's views?
I have not reverted yet because I wanted to hear others' views first AndrewRT( Talk) 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch appears more than once as well. Does anyone have a concern about their prominence in the article? WP:Undue weight
There has been criticism that the EU is using the ICC to advance it's global policy objectives and to establish it's cultural and legal standards as global standards. [2] We can use articles like this to balance the Article 98 material we might add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz ( talk • contribs)
The article currently states:
I can’t find the word ‘non-delegable’ in the source. What gives? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The following information was deleted:
There are four methods by which a case may reach the ICC: [3]
1. A state party refers the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the Court's jurisdiction refers the case;
3. The United Nations Security Council refers the case; or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the ICC Prosecutor.
I'm not clear on why it was deleted. The editor said the section was "unnecessary, method #2 was wrong, and the source was dubious".
Why is it unnecessary? I don't see this information covered in the article elsewhere and it seems like a fairly basic piece of information that can only be gleaned from going though the Statute with a fine-tooth comb.
As for #2 being wrong, I would direct attention to Article 12, particularly sub-Article (3), which allows this procedure to take place.
I agree with the dubiousness of the citation. But shouldn't the information be restored with a better citation? – SESmith 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation on #2. I suppose it might be a little pedantic or redundant to include this information, but I can see it as being a basic question people researching the ICC might have. We'll see what others think. – SESmith 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, the article passed
Wikipedia:Good article criteria with flying colors. --
Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (
ταlκ) 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should remove the Criticism section and move each of the criticisms to the appropriate part of the article, per Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure.
Before I'm accused again of trying to censor criticisms, note that I don't want to delete any criticisms from the article: I just think the article will flow much better if these things are discussed in the appropriate sections rather than lumped together at the bottom of the article. It makes far more sense to discuss the Indian government's concerns about weapons of mass destruction in the Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court section than anywhere else. Similarly, anyone reading the section on Rights of the accused will want to hear the Heritage Foundation's concerns — they shouldn't have to get to the end of the article to find this discussion.
I originally created the criticism section because I thought it would help readers understand why the US government and others oppose the court. In retrospect, this was a terrible idea: this structure doesn't really shed any light on why people oppose the court but, as Jimbo suggested, the criticism section has become a troll magnet. If readers want a summary of, say, the US government's concerns about the Court, they can just follow the links from the article to the US State Department website or the United States and the International Criminal Court article.
Any objections? Sideshow Bob Roberts 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"The U.S. position, of course, has been we've negotiated for many years in support of creating this permanent court. These are crimes we felt, should be brought before the court for prosecution, and we believe the Rome statute is very, very close to achieving that objective. We think there is a small but very, very important gap that still needs to be filled, and we're working very hard...
VAN SUSTEREN: Which is?
SCHEFFER: It's a gap that would expose particularly the armed forces of non-state parties, in other words countries that have not yet joined the court, to the actual full jurisdiction of the court, without those governments actually agreeing to be bound by this treaty and by the rules of the court.
SCHEFFER: Well, we're not intimidated by the prospect of our soldiers conduct being put under scrutiny for compliance with the laws of war. We have a very long tradition of trying to enforce the laws of war within our military court systems. And occasionally there will be mistakes or other rogue elements that take place, even within our armed forces, that have to be dealt with by our military court system. And we have great confidence in that military court system.
COSSACK: It's not our military -- it's not the United States' military court system that I'm asking about. It's about turning over jurisdiction to some other court to judge United States troops.
SCHEFFER: Well, the Rome treaty has been negotiated such that if there were to be charges or investigations launched against American armed forces, there is an opportunity for the American government to step in under a rule called complementarity and snatch that investigation away and conduct it domestically ourselves so that we can investigate these problems ourselves.
Since no-one's offered any reason for keeping the criticisms together in one section, I've moved them around.
[4] I think this is a huge improvement but I'm not entirely happy with the outcome and I'd appreciate some feedback — maybe someone could cast a critical eye over the Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Rights of the accused and Amnesties and national reconciliation processes sections? Cheers,
Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states:
The prosecutor can inititate a preliminary investigation in three circumstances:
* Upon referral from a member country
* Upon referral from the United Nations Security Council
* Where information is provided from other sources including individuals
In all cases the prosecutor must first conduct a preliminary examination and then apply to a pre-trial chamber of judges for permission to start an investigation.
This is incorrect. The Prosecutor only needs to obtain authorisation from the Pre-Trial Chamber when he's acting proprio motu, under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. Where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council, the Prosecutor doesn't have to obtain permission.
Unfortunately, the ICC website (which the article cites as a source for this information) does not make this clear. The sentence "If the Prosecutor then decides that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he will request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise an investigation" could easily be understood to refer to all investigations, not just those where the Prosecutor is acting on the basis of information received by other sources. (I've also read others interpret the statute this way, including the American Bar Association ( .doc file).)
Nonetheless, this interpretation is clearly wrong. The Pre-Trial Chamber didn't issue its first decision until 17 February 2005, by which time the Prosecutor had already opened formal investigations into the situations in Uganda and the DRC. He was able to open these investigations without authorisation from the Pre-Trial Chamber because these situations were referred to him by States Parties.
Dozens of reliable, published sources explicitly state that judicial authorisation is not required where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council. See, for example:
Does anyone object to changing this? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Chad should be green. It's probably a very simple thing to fix but it's beyond me. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 09:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This article contains the following criticism:
"Critics of the Court argue that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”.[38] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice"
I am fine with this criticism being included, but how about putting in the counter points?
According to Human Rights Watch:
"Many safeguards exist in the ICC treaty to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. For example, all indictments will require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges, which will examine the evidence supporting the indictment before issuing it. The accused and any concerned countries will have an opportunity to challenge the indictment during confirmation hearings before the Pre-Trial Chamber. In addition, any investigation initiated by the prosecutor will first have to be approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber.
Prosecutors and judges all undergo rigorous scrutiny before they are elected and appointed to the court. The treaty establishes strict criteria for the selection of the prosecutor and the judges, requiring experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond reproach. They are prohibited from any activity during their term in office that might jeopardize their independence, and can be excused from particular cases if there is any question of partiality. Ultimately, in the unlikely event that they abuse their powers, they can be impeached."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/qna.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.133.192 ( talk) 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted most of this edit, which I think is pretty misleading. Firstly, it suggests that amnesties violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, neither of these documents explicitly calls for individual criminal prosecution of human rights abusers. If anyone wants to suggest that amnesties violate the UDHR or the ICCPR, please cite a reliable, published source who says this.
Secondly, the editor cites three documents from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch ( [5], [6], [7]) but misreports what they say. (For example, I couldn't find where these sources "argue that the granting of blanket amnesties for extreme human rights violations [...] abuses the rights of victims".)
If people want to expand this section, let's stick to what our sources actually say, and not publish our own analysis. After all, there are loads of reliable, peer-reviewed papers about blanket amnesties, impunity, and the ICC, so there's no reason for us to say anything that's not explicitly supported by a source. Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts ( talk) 11:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I added this new section as the Reader should be able to access the degree of ICC effectiveness. Please edit in additional appropriate effectiveness information, as I am not an expert on this subject. Raggz ( talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting this edit, which transformed the section on Iraq from a one-paragraph summary to a series of random quotes from the Prosecutor's letter.
First of all, I think a concise summary is much easier for the reader to understand than a series of quotes.
Second, it makes no sense for us to go into so much detail about Iraq, when ICC hasn't even opened an investigation into the situation there. I don't understand why we should be giving more space to Iraq than we do to Darfur or any of the other situations which the Prosecutor has actually investigated. Moreover, this article clearly links to both The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the prosecutor's letter. Any readers who are interested in long, direct quotes from the prosecutor's analysis are capable of clicking the links and reading it for themselves.
Thirdly, by taking quotes out of context, this section distorts the Prosecutor's conclusions. For example, under the heading "Allegations concerning War Crimes", the Prosecutor is quoted as saying that "the available information did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed". However, if you read the source ( PDF), it's clear that this quote referred specifically to the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks, not to war crimes in general. (In fact the Prosecutor concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes had been committed.)
Sideshow Bob Roberts ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why not move this to it's own stubb? It should remain avaialable, but has no relvance to this article. Raggz 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states:
Sexual abuse and child prosecution are serious crimes, but they do not normally fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Unless a reliable source claims that UN personnel are suspected of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, and that the ICC has not responded appropriately, this entire section should go. Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states that the ICC lacks any enforcement capability. This is untrue: there are currently 104 states parties to the Rome Statute, all of whom are legally obliged to enforce the Court's rulings. In cases where the Security Council refers a situation to the Court, it is expected that the Security Council will take action to enforce the Court's rulings. There may be rare cases, such as the current situation in Uganda, where a non-state party refers a situation to the Court and then decides that it doesn't want to enforce the Court's decisions, but it is incorrect to say that the court lacks any enforcement capability. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It likely can be proven that the lack of war crimes enforcement at the UN is a tacit UN policy to avoid political embarassment, that "what happens in the Sudan stays in the Sudan". Is the UN exempt from war crimes prosecution by the ICC?
The following is partly OR and most will not apear in the article War Crimes:"In the context of war, a war crime is a punishable offense under international law, for violations of the laws of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime, while violations in internal conflicts are typically limited to the local jurisdiction. In essence, the term "war crime" represents the concept of an international jurisdiction as applicable to the most severe crimes, in areas where government is dysfunctional and society is in a state of turmoil." Actual international law is more complex than wikipedia law, but if we assume the above is correct the ICC has jurisdiction from (1) The UN Security Council (which may enhance ICC jurisdiction), (2) Over all war crimes in Somalia, (3) Over all troops from ICC members. (4) The ICC is "local law", (the local judge is quoted saying child rape is not being tried because the soldiers are men and must be enterained.) An ocupying force has Geneva Convention responsibilities.
Next we have command responsibility. The Commander is appointed by the UN and has command responsibility (liability). The UNSG stated that there was a problem and that it would get fixed (in 2004). IF the problem was covered up or neglected (as widely alleged), then command responsibility goes up to whatever level should have stoped the war crimes, or held the criminals internally responsible. The nation that lent the Commander cannot be liable.
Somalia doesn't want UN troops, the UN mission is technically an invasion of Somalia by foreign troops. The war has already been ruled inter-state anyway. This means in "wikilaw" that "Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a war crime".
Is the ICC Prosecutor expected to ignore the potential effect upon the ICC if he investigates the UNSG and the UNSC national representatives for command responsibility war crimes? What if he just prosecutes low level field commanders only, will they still protect ICC personnel? My OR point is that the ICC prosecutor would be foolish to focus on investigating ANY UN war crimes, regardless of merit. The UN has impunity under international criminal law in fact, if not in theory. Raggz 01:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This source is a serious work, but fact checking might be questioned as it seems self-published. I added it anyway, because it helps maintain a NPOV and I don't have a better source to manage this. It is a serious scholarly self-published source. Feel free to delete it, if it seems unreliable. We can bend the rule for NPOV compliance - if we want to. Raggz 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
At present, the Criminal Impunity & ICC Prosecution section is the longest section in the article — almost as long as all the other criticisms put together. This is completely out of proportion to its importance.
Personally, I don't think this stuff merits a mention at all because the Prosecutor's decision is subject to scrutiny by the Pre-Trial Chamber. However, since at least one reliable source makes this criticism, I'm not inclined to delete it unless there's a consensus.
If we keep it, I think we should cut it down to one or two sentences at most. Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is very well written, and is very informative. I suggest making it a page rather than inclusion here. I believe it to be an authoratative statement of the limits of prosecutorial power from a legalistic pov. As many reliable sources state, there are legalistic concerns and political concerns. The ICC is very much a legal institution AND it is a political institution. One weakness of this section is that it is way too long. The more important is that it totally neglects the political issues related to ICC prosecutions.
Americans expect political influence over prosecutions. Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President and are legally fired for political causes. This recently happened. Local US prosecutors and judges are elected politicians, and properly are subject to community political pressures. ICC prosecutors and judges are not elected. In China, there is some evidence that politics enters into the justices system, as it does throughout most of the world. This section should reflect worldwide concerns about political input into prosecutorial discretion. Raggz 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new template for use at the bottom of some ICC-related articles:
International Criminal Court (ICC) | ||
Statute - States Parties - Judges - Cases | ||
---|---|---|
Crimes: | ||
Genocide - War crime - Crime against humanity - Crime of aggression | ||
Accused persons: | ||
Ahmed Haroun -
Joseph Kony -
Ali Kushayb -
Thomas Lubanga Raska Lukwiya - Okot Odhiambo - Dominic Ongwen - Vincent Otti | ||
Miscellaneous: | ||
United States and the ICC -
American Servicemembers' Protection Act The ICC and the 2003 invasion of Iraq - The ICC in popular culture |
Is this a bad idea? Please post any criticisms, suggestions, etc, to the template's talk page, not here. Thanks, Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This section was deleted, why? The war criminals in Darfur are still free. When asked, the ICC President stated that the ICC cannot enforce laws unless others cooperate. The HF stated this was a problem, an inability to enforce laws. Is there a good reason not to revert this? We never discussed deleting this, but it was deleted. Raggz 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted without discussion: "Some might be concerned that even one actual crime occured with impunity in Iraq, so the Prosecutor reassured those who are concerned that "the Office also collected information on national proceedings, including commentaries from various sources, and that national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents."
This is a direct quote from the ICC prosecutor, why was it deleted? 240 reports were received and investigated, and "national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents". Raggz 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have preferred to leave the US out of this article because the US has no present role with the ICC and will not until 2009. Other editors insist upon including the US, which from my pov means that we need to be fair and balanced in exactly how the US role is included.
The article has a misleading quote when it says: "According to David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference (and who voted against adoption of the treaty), “when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, ‘Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?’ And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test.” This quote either requires deletion, or work to put it into the context that the quote was offered to CNN. I would prefer deletion, as the context within US Constitutional law is complex, and providing this context would be an uneeded diversion into US law.
One basic human right guaranteed by the US Constitution is the right to never be forced to a trial before any judge. The US Constitution specifically exempts members of the Armed Forces, (which unlike those of Europe have generally reduced human rights legally). Ambassador Scheffer made his comments in the context of the compatibility of trial for members of the US Armed Forces and it is innappropriate to use them in any other context, as they are in our article.
The UCMJ does require what amounts to a small version of a jury trial. Defendendts do not appear before a judge, (except for very minor matters where confinement cannot be imposed). The three military-member panels must include an enlisted member if the ascused is not a military officer, this is to better create a jury of their peers, and in most ways these panels function as small juries. Do we want to get into detail about the UCMJ and US Constitutional law? If so, we can do that. If not, the quote in question needs to go.
David Scheffer holds the opinion that members of the US Armed Forces could be tried by a three judge panel, so it is a fair quote only in that context. I can of course, provide authoratative opinions in contrast. Is this what we want? Raggz 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Our article says "However, a number of states, including China, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined." The position of the United States Government may not be summarized by the single word "critical", so this sentence requires qualification. This qualification I view as an unneeded digression that would interfer rather than assist the Reader. Therefore I will delete this sentence because (1) it is contextually only partly accurate and (2) more than half of the nations of the world have not joined, so the focus on a few nations is unneeded, and (3) the concerns of China, India and the United States canot be summarized in one word, nor perhaps in one paragraph. Raggz 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Read this article - the US was a leader for the ICC [1] It suggests issues regarding criticisims of the ICC not yet included. We can include many of these with Article 98 discussions - or just not cover either POV? Raggz 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The following section deals exclusively with one persons views on the court:
The substantive points appear to be covered in the previous sections, although worded differently. Shouldn't this just be included in the relevant section/s?
By having a section just for Kissinger are we giving WP:Undue weight to one person's views?
I have not reverted yet because I wanted to hear others' views first AndrewRT( Talk) 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch appears more than once as well. Does anyone have a concern about their prominence in the article? WP:Undue weight
There has been criticism that the EU is using the ICC to advance it's global policy objectives and to establish it's cultural and legal standards as global standards. [2] We can use articles like this to balance the Article 98 material we might add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz ( talk • contribs)
The article currently states:
I can’t find the word ‘non-delegable’ in the source. What gives? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The following information was deleted:
There are four methods by which a case may reach the ICC: [3]
1. A state party refers the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the Court's jurisdiction refers the case;
3. The United Nations Security Council refers the case; or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the ICC Prosecutor.
I'm not clear on why it was deleted. The editor said the section was "unnecessary, method #2 was wrong, and the source was dubious".
Why is it unnecessary? I don't see this information covered in the article elsewhere and it seems like a fairly basic piece of information that can only be gleaned from going though the Statute with a fine-tooth comb.
As for #2 being wrong, I would direct attention to Article 12, particularly sub-Article (3), which allows this procedure to take place.
I agree with the dubiousness of the citation. But shouldn't the information be restored with a better citation? – SESmith 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation on #2. I suppose it might be a little pedantic or redundant to include this information, but I can see it as being a basic question people researching the ICC might have. We'll see what others think. – SESmith 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, the article passed
Wikipedia:Good article criteria with flying colors. --
Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (
ταlκ) 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should remove the Criticism section and move each of the criticisms to the appropriate part of the article, per Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure.
Before I'm accused again of trying to censor criticisms, note that I don't want to delete any criticisms from the article: I just think the article will flow much better if these things are discussed in the appropriate sections rather than lumped together at the bottom of the article. It makes far more sense to discuss the Indian government's concerns about weapons of mass destruction in the Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court section than anywhere else. Similarly, anyone reading the section on Rights of the accused will want to hear the Heritage Foundation's concerns — they shouldn't have to get to the end of the article to find this discussion.
I originally created the criticism section because I thought it would help readers understand why the US government and others oppose the court. In retrospect, this was a terrible idea: this structure doesn't really shed any light on why people oppose the court but, as Jimbo suggested, the criticism section has become a troll magnet. If readers want a summary of, say, the US government's concerns about the Court, they can just follow the links from the article to the US State Department website or the United States and the International Criminal Court article.
Any objections? Sideshow Bob Roberts 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"The U.S. position, of course, has been we've negotiated for many years in support of creating this permanent court. These are crimes we felt, should be brought before the court for prosecution, and we believe the Rome statute is very, very close to achieving that objective. We think there is a small but very, very important gap that still needs to be filled, and we're working very hard...
VAN SUSTEREN: Which is?
SCHEFFER: It's a gap that would expose particularly the armed forces of non-state parties, in other words countries that have not yet joined the court, to the actual full jurisdiction of the court, without those governments actually agreeing to be bound by this treaty and by the rules of the court.
SCHEFFER: Well, we're not intimidated by the prospect of our soldiers conduct being put under scrutiny for compliance with the laws of war. We have a very long tradition of trying to enforce the laws of war within our military court systems. And occasionally there will be mistakes or other rogue elements that take place, even within our armed forces, that have to be dealt with by our military court system. And we have great confidence in that military court system.
COSSACK: It's not our military -- it's not the United States' military court system that I'm asking about. It's about turning over jurisdiction to some other court to judge United States troops.
SCHEFFER: Well, the Rome treaty has been negotiated such that if there were to be charges or investigations launched against American armed forces, there is an opportunity for the American government to step in under a rule called complementarity and snatch that investigation away and conduct it domestically ourselves so that we can investigate these problems ourselves.
Since no-one's offered any reason for keeping the criticisms together in one section, I've moved them around.
[4] I think this is a huge improvement but I'm not entirely happy with the outcome and I'd appreciate some feedback — maybe someone could cast a critical eye over the Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Rights of the accused and Amnesties and national reconciliation processes sections? Cheers,
Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states:
The prosecutor can inititate a preliminary investigation in three circumstances:
* Upon referral from a member country
* Upon referral from the United Nations Security Council
* Where information is provided from other sources including individuals
In all cases the prosecutor must first conduct a preliminary examination and then apply to a pre-trial chamber of judges for permission to start an investigation.
This is incorrect. The Prosecutor only needs to obtain authorisation from the Pre-Trial Chamber when he's acting proprio motu, under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. Where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council, the Prosecutor doesn't have to obtain permission.
Unfortunately, the ICC website (which the article cites as a source for this information) does not make this clear. The sentence "If the Prosecutor then decides that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he will request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise an investigation" could easily be understood to refer to all investigations, not just those where the Prosecutor is acting on the basis of information received by other sources. (I've also read others interpret the statute this way, including the American Bar Association ( .doc file).)
Nonetheless, this interpretation is clearly wrong. The Pre-Trial Chamber didn't issue its first decision until 17 February 2005, by which time the Prosecutor had already opened formal investigations into the situations in Uganda and the DRC. He was able to open these investigations without authorisation from the Pre-Trial Chamber because these situations were referred to him by States Parties.
Dozens of reliable, published sources explicitly state that judicial authorisation is not required where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council. See, for example:
Does anyone object to changing this? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Chad should be green. It's probably a very simple thing to fix but it's beyond me. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 09:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This article contains the following criticism:
"Critics of the Court argue that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”.[38] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice"
I am fine with this criticism being included, but how about putting in the counter points?
According to Human Rights Watch:
"Many safeguards exist in the ICC treaty to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. For example, all indictments will require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges, which will examine the evidence supporting the indictment before issuing it. The accused and any concerned countries will have an opportunity to challenge the indictment during confirmation hearings before the Pre-Trial Chamber. In addition, any investigation initiated by the prosecutor will first have to be approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber.
Prosecutors and judges all undergo rigorous scrutiny before they are elected and appointed to the court. The treaty establishes strict criteria for the selection of the prosecutor and the judges, requiring experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond reproach. They are prohibited from any activity during their term in office that might jeopardize their independence, and can be excused from particular cases if there is any question of partiality. Ultimately, in the unlikely event that they abuse their powers, they can be impeached."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/qna.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.133.192 ( talk) 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted most of this edit, which I think is pretty misleading. Firstly, it suggests that amnesties violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, neither of these documents explicitly calls for individual criminal prosecution of human rights abusers. If anyone wants to suggest that amnesties violate the UDHR or the ICCPR, please cite a reliable, published source who says this.
Secondly, the editor cites three documents from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch ( [5], [6], [7]) but misreports what they say. (For example, I couldn't find where these sources "argue that the granting of blanket amnesties for extreme human rights violations [...] abuses the rights of victims".)
If people want to expand this section, let's stick to what our sources actually say, and not publish our own analysis. After all, there are loads of reliable, peer-reviewed papers about blanket amnesties, impunity, and the ICC, so there's no reason for us to say anything that's not explicitly supported by a source. Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts ( talk) 11:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I added this new section as the Reader should be able to access the degree of ICC effectiveness. Please edit in additional appropriate effectiveness information, as I am not an expert on this subject. Raggz ( talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting this edit, which transformed the section on Iraq from a one-paragraph summary to a series of random quotes from the Prosecutor's letter.
First of all, I think a concise summary is much easier for the reader to understand than a series of quotes.
Second, it makes no sense for us to go into so much detail about Iraq, when ICC hasn't even opened an investigation into the situation there. I don't understand why we should be giving more space to Iraq than we do to Darfur or any of the other situations which the Prosecutor has actually investigated. Moreover, this article clearly links to both The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the prosecutor's letter. Any readers who are interested in long, direct quotes from the prosecutor's analysis are capable of clicking the links and reading it for themselves.
Thirdly, by taking quotes out of context, this section distorts the Prosecutor's conclusions. For example, under the heading "Allegations concerning War Crimes", the Prosecutor is quoted as saying that "the available information did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed". However, if you read the source ( PDF), it's clear that this quote referred specifically to the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks, not to war crimes in general. (In fact the Prosecutor concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes had been committed.)
Sideshow Bob Roberts ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |