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 |
Amassador John Boulton articulated the position of the US Government on the ICC, and this is now posted. [1]Currently Human Rights Watch speaks to the US constitutionality of the ICC, and it cites only an advocacy POV for support. Why have Human Rights Watch express a POV?
The US Government speaks to the constitutionality of the ICC. Any opinions that oppose the official view of the government should cite at minimum a US court decision or other official source, not a political advocacy document that is intended to express a single POV. [2]
The actual position of the US Government on the ICC is the actual position of the US Government, we should include only official sources to express the POV of the US Government. Human Rights Watch may not contradict it in regard to what it's positions are. Raggz 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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
I would like to see most of the stuff about the US objections moved to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration
The US objections are central to this page and should not be moved.
The US objections represent a fundamental issue not addressed. Different people in different nations have different legal human rights. All have those guaranteed by the UN Charter, but some (including those in the US) legally have greater human rights than do most. The government of the US cannot constitutionally enter into any treaty that diminishes the legal human rights of her citizens at any trial. If the Senate were to do so, the Supreme Court would strike the treaty on constitutional grounds. An American tried before the ICC is denied any form of appeal, and this court operates without any formal judicial peer-review. For many similar reasons, the greater legal human rights of US citizens preclude US participation with the ICC. The human rights guaranteed by the ICC need to US standards, or higher, otherwise the US Government lacks the constitutional authority to enter into any ICC treaty. An increase in human rights for all would be a good thing?
There are many people for whom the human rights guaranteed by the UN Charter are merely theoretical. Their governments offer them greatly reduced legal access to human rights. Such Nations chose to deny the ICC any jurisdiction.
The US objections dominate this discussion because the issue of dissimilar human rights in each nation is the primary obstacle to expansion of ICC jurisdiction. ^^^^ —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Raggz (
talk •
contribs)
19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm removing this paragraph:
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)
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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
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:
(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
How could any signature offered without the authority of the government be binding? Raggz 09:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No executive order may conflict with an actual law, if it does it is automatically nullified (Presidents may not pass laws). No executive order can serve as a treaty, in other words no executive order may bind the Government of the US as a treaty would.
The example above includes a legislative act, so even without an executive order it is enforcible internally.
To bind the US internationally, this is what a treaty does. Any action so binding the US must meet the constitutional requirements for any treaty.
"... 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." Not true. No treaty is binding upon the US unless it was entered into with the authority of the US Government. No federal officer or agency may do so without the formal consent of the Senate. Raggz 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
The US POV is irrelevant really, the ICC has no jurisdiction over US citizens and never will have this. The only time that there is relevance to the US in regard to this topic is when (1) the United Nations is involved, because the US is a member of the UN - or (2) the greater human rights guaranteed within the US are discussed.
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)
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))
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)
Citizens of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Germany may legally be tried by judges but American citizens may not be. Americans have civil rights that prohibit this, the others do not. International law is in practice a blend of national and international law, this was especially true for Nuremburg.
The fundamental human rights of Americans are not "in their minds - but are guaranteed by the US Constitution. The ICC must recognize the fundamental human rights of Americans if it is to ever have jurisdiction over Americans.
United States Constitution - Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury (of peers), guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.
The greater legal and fundamental human rights of US citizens deserves a section, because presently the ICC neither recognizes these nor would it accomodate these. Raggz 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Added some policies from the past which today would constitute grounds for prosecution by the ICC.-- Nomen Nescio 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Allegations are generally irrelevant, convictions are not. A very high standard should be used for mere allegations unless (1) they are raised by the UN Security Council or (2) appear before the ICC. Raggz 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Raggz 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Request article on internationnal criminal court procedures
Deleted, not worth mentioning. The Prosecutor didn't mention it in his recent communication. Otto ter Haar 07:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
The difference is that proposals to amend the US Constitution to REDUCE human rights would never pass. You use examples of nations that amended their constitutions to INCREASE human rights? If not, how did they persuade those people to give up their human rights in exchange for ICC jurisdiction? Perhaps human rights are just more valued by Americans? I don't know of your examples who gave up their rights, and look forward to learning why? Raggz 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
The ICC article is about an emerging judicial system, and about it's struggle to be relevant. To move the discussion of the process of ICC emergence is to presume that the ICC has already attained wide jurisdiction, which it has not. When (and if) this occurs, at this point the problems the ICC curently faces will have passed. Presently the ICC faces credibility and jurisidictional challenges that should be addressed. These exisit, we need to address them. Raggz 09:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
How about his:
Not perfect, but what do you think? Nomen Nescio 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The position of the United States should be correctly stated. If incorrectly stated, it should be re-stated with the corrct citation. There is no need for any of us to edit the official postion of the US Government, nor to "spin" it. There is n obligation to correctly state this.
Does anyone have an actual reference where the US Government has taken any position other than to deny ICC juridiction over her own citizens? If such an oficial statement of the US Government actually exists, it is highly relevant to post it. Please consider that it is the duty of the United States Govrnment to protect all of her citizens from the jurisdiction of the ICC, because the ICC does not recognize the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans. So - who has a citation that the US opposes the trial of anyone but Americans by the ICC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raggz ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
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)
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)
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)
Hi, I'm new to English version of Wiki but I've contributed on updates related to Japan before and I did so just moments before this entry too. You mention the Crime of Aggression in the very first part of the page but you only mention that CAG is NOT within the jurisdiction of the Court very briefly with explanations, very late in the page under Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. I think this structure is problematic because it is a given fact that CAG DOES NOT fall under the Court's jurisdiction until the definition of the crime is set, as you explained in the section. I think some section of this explanatory part should be included in the VERY BEGINNING so that it will not make viewers who only take a glance of the first few paragraphs of the page and say, "Hey, the ICC DOES have jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression!", having misguided knowledge about the Court's ACTUAL jurisdiction. So can the very first sentence of the page be rephrased as something like the following?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is also desgined to have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but it can only exercise it when the defenition of the crime is set (Add a reference link connecting to the reasons here --> This one).
Would this work for you? As an advocate of the ICC myself and being a member of the NGO Coalition for the ICC (CICC), I find it pertinent to have this information laid out in the very beginning to facilitate better and correct understanding of the Court's capabilities and limits. I'd appreciate it if you can consider making this change. Thank you.-- Etranger3 01 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
An IP has removed the statement that “69% of Americans supported U.S. participation in the ICC”, claiming that “that is NOT what this source said....”
The source was a media release by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, describing a poll of 1,182 Americans. It says:
I'm restoring the statement. If anyone wants to change it, please read the source first.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The opinion polls on this point are misleading, at any rate. As evidence for this clearly POV position, it is hard to find a mainstream politician with national ambitions willing to go out on a limb in support of the US signing on to the ICC. If 69% of the American public truly supported the ICC, I doubt you would see such a dearth of support for it in the American political sphere. What I expect you are seeing is people's responses to the question, "Do you support the U.S. joining the International Criminal Court to prosecute those who commit genocide,...etc. etc.?" Rephrase the question to "Do you support the U.S. joining the ICC if it meant subjecting U.S. sovereignty to an international organization with the power to try U.S. leaders and soldiers,...etc. etc.?" and I doubt you'd get the same answer. So, at best, that statement about widespread U.S. public support for the ICC is misleading. Epstein's Mother 12:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
THe survey saying Americans supported the court was extremely biased, I removed the reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:128.230.188.84 ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The following paragraph was recently added to the lead section:
I'm removing it for the following reasons:
Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No one has offered any quote or support for the theory that the US Government in any way "opposes" the ICC. Please do so, or refrain? The US Government does oppose ICC jurisdiction over US citizens, (unless properly referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council. There is great difference between the legally appropriate decision (of any nation)not to enter into this treaty - and to "oppose" other nations entering into whatever treaties they may wish to have?
Article 6 of the US Constitution denies the authority of any branch of government to enact any law or treaty that diminishes any of the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. If the ICC is willing to guarantee US citizens these human rights, only then can such a treaty legally be entered into.
Surveys of public opinion within the US are irrelevant since the US Constitution bars acceptance of the ICC jurisdiction unless it accepts the fundamental human rights of Americans.
(I'm new to Wiki, so hints as to format and etiquette are welcome.) Raggz 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Here you make an excellent point. There are many civil liberties recognized in this large world we live in, and nowhere is there a government that recognizes them all. The civil right of convicted criminals to not be executed is not recognized by some US states. (Btw, the US Government lacks constitutional authority to ban the death penalty, we have a "federal system" leaving this to the states, but I digress). Canada will not respect extradition to the US if the death penalty may result. This is to be respected, it is an expression of Canada's right to determine what civil rights will and will not be respected. The US takes an analagous position with Canada, asking her to agree not to extradite Americans to any jurisdiction that does not respect their right of jury trial (diplomacy - as the Statute of Rome encourages under Article 98).
Will the ICC respect the right of Americans to their fundamental civil liberties? One of these is the right to trial by jury (what's the big deal about this anyway at the ICC) and the right to bear arms, and the right to confront their accuser? Yes - or No? Will Americans fundamental civil rights be respected?
I note that STILL, no one has offered any reference that shows that (1) the US Government opposes the ICC (other than jurisdiction over Americans) or (2) that the US opposes any nation from joining the ICC, or (3) that diplomacy under Aricle 98 of the Rome Statute is in any way improper or illegal under international law.
You can obviously get POV-driven quotes, but serious references are at this point ZERO. There will be none offered? Raggz 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the ICC an attempt to build an alternative to the United Nations? The United Nations does everything that the ICC does, and more? Is it a valid POV to see the ICC as an attempt to create another UN? If not, why not?
Should nations committed to the protection of human rights through actions of the United Nations oppose the ICC as an unneeded competitor? Why does the world need more than one judicial system, why have competing courts? Raggz 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing this.
This article is about the International Criminal Court, not the United States. Granted, some aspects of America's relationship with the ICC may be notable enough to mention here (such as Bilateral Immunity Agreements or the UN Security Resolutions shielding UN peacekeepers from ICC prosecution). However, discussions about the rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights, or the executive branch's authority to enter into international agreements, are off-topic. There is a separate article about the United States and the International Criminal Court, where this stuff may be relevant.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This reflects an intrinsic POV in editing that detracts from the article. If the editorial intent is to exclude the conflict between civil liberties as recognized within the US and those recognized elsewhere, fine. This is not the case. The article needs to be seriously edited to remove POV based statements about this conflict. For example Human Rights Watch is used to speak for the US position on the ICC issues - and you edit out the official position of the US Government? Why can't the statements of the US Government speak for the US Govrnment? Why should you use Human Rights Watch POV in lieu of the official position? I am a new user, how may I appeal this seemingly abitrary edit? If you include the official objections of the US Government in the article, why edit the actual objections in favor of Human Rights Watch?
Please explain why you deleted the official position of the United States in favor of a Human Rights Watch opinion on the official position of the United States Government?
Do you agree that the ICC is attempting to emerge as a sustainable global judicial authority, and that the basis for the US-led opposition is a critical issue for the future of the ICC? Why are you trying to edit an attempt to balance this discussion? You can edit out the one-sided US references, that too would be fair.
Do you agree that this conflict is about the different civil liberties recognized by the US and the ICC? (If not, do you agree that the two bodies recognize fundamentally different civil liberties?) If the current POV- based statements (often with weak or no support) are to be retained - then it is necessary to reach a NPOV by permitting fair and balanced additions?
Do you agree that the Rome Statute denies the long-accepted civil liberty of Trial by Jury? I protest your removal of my edit that this civil liberty is denied by the Rome Statute. It is a fact of relevance, and the center of the International debate. You should not edit this away to protect your POV.
You claim that the US "unsigned" the ICC treaty. I offered the relevant US law proving that the treaty was never entered into by the US Government, nor was it ever "unsigned". Did Clinton return and cross-out or obliterate his signature? Do you have some reference that proves he did this? I protest your removal of the references necessary to prove that this treaty was never signed, much less "unsigned". If you bring it up, I should be able to offer the documents disproving it? So drop your claim, - or support it and permit a balancing POV. Either way, strive for a NPOV.
Just delete all references to the ICC/US issues - or permit a NPOV by extensive refrences. Either is a fair way to edit. Raggz 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I added "The Rome Statute does not recognize the Right to Jury Trial".
This is an important fact. First is is merely a disclosure of what civil liberties are respected by the ICC and which are not. Second, this ommission is central to the future growth of the ICC, because ommitting it requires the US Govenment to organize global opposition.
These eleven words bring this section to a NPOV. Why hide central facts from the reader? Raggz 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is unclear as to how judicial objectivity is maintained prior to trial. Under rights of the accused, it is claimed there is a preumption of innocence. In this section, it describes the Court taking sides with the "victim". Now we all want victims to be assisted, but BEFORE a trial is held, how is it determined who is the victim?
Of course victims require assistance, but shouldn't this assistance be handled by a neutral party? Raggz 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
"Many American critics of the Court, such as the Heritage Foundation, claim that “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.”[56]
You insist upon using the Heritage Foundation to articulate the official policy of the United States Government. I deleted this, and I added the official policy of the United States Government instead. Why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is better qualified to speak on what US policy is than the official policy statement? Raggz 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a section claiming that the United States "opposes" the ICC, and the editor refuses to support this claim. (The seven year old CNN transcript cited does not support this claim.) I will delete this section if it is not supported. Does anyone have ANY support for this theory that the US opposes the ICC, that the official US statement on this is a lie? Please post it. Raggz 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
ALL of the Article 98 discussion needs revision to attain a NPOV. Before I edit it to attain this objective, is there any objection? Article 98 is part of the Statute and is being used exactly as intended, for diplomacy regarding ICC jurisdiction. Does anyone have a problem with stating that Article 98 diplomacy was intended when Article 98 was included? What we have here are people with a POV that Article 98 is a bad Article? Well, this POV is irrelevant to the article, isn't it? We also have people with a POV that Artcle 98 diplomacy by the US is bad diplomacy? This POV is irrelevant and will soon be deleted.
Does anyone have a problem with the goal of a NPOV? Do we all agree that the POVs above must go? Raggz 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
and consent to surrender
I agree, there is no opposition, why have a section on this? I would like to see a Future Challenges of the Court Section. The US is now irrelevant to the ICC. The only remaining US issue is jurisdiction over US citizens, and Article 98 agreements have largely resolved this issue. The ICC will just ignore Americans anyway. What is the idea, a New Orleans Tribunal? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Do people have questions about the US issues? If so, then answering these would have purpose. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me, we will wait a few days, as long as they offer a reliable source to support this theory. For example: a citation that shows that the US has tried to keep one nation from joining the court? Can we agree that citations as to unsupported opinions should not count? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are Article 98 agreements important to this Article? I don't see any relevance to the Article. The ICC won't be aresting or trying Americans anyway? Can you imagine a case where this would happen? Americans who commit crimes will be tried by the same courts that try them now? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Presently the text is pointless, there is no context and no conclusion, just a thinly layered POV that the US is doing something improper by conducting normal diplomacy. I would like an A-98 section somewhere, because people are curious about this. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So post some of these European scholars on A-98? IF we get into A-98 we should give the discussion context, beginning with why should anyone care about bi-lateral diplomacy. I don't know why anyone would, but I can learn. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states "On 2002-05-06, the Bush administration announced it was cancelling the United States' signature of the treaty."[68] This reference does not support this statement. The Government of the United States actually said in the referenced document "... the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000". I suggest substitution of the actual statement, actually I prefer that the whole signing issue it be deleted as it is irrelevant? Write it as you wish, just don't incorrectly claim that the US canclled this treaty, your reference uses "no legal obligations", not cancelled, that phrase would be fine.
Vice-president Al Gore did the same thing, when signing the Kyoto Protocol. Look at how that article handled this? "The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified." "On 1998-11-12, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[42] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification." Raggz 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"The movement for the creation of an international court to deal with the problem of crimes committed against humanity gained force after the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, established to punish serious crimes committed by the losing sides during World War II. At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Law Commission drafted two draft statutes by the early 1950s, but these were shelved as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.[2]"
This paragraph suggests that Nuremberg and Tokyo are analagous international courts - but the citation itself makes multiple stong cases otherwise. To claim that Nuremberg is an analgous court is to advance a legitimate POV. There is nothing wrong with making this claim, and there is ample support for it. There is another legitimate POV that Nuremberg has no relevance to the ICC. How can these competing POVs be balanced here to attain a NPOV? Really getting into this would take space. I suggest dropping the controversial implication that Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunls are in any way related to the ICC? However the editor manages to attain a NPOV will be fine by me. It is implied, not stated, I could live with this paragraph unchanged, but it could be a lot better.
The UN was the focus for international justice in the 1950's and 60's. Didn't the ICC movement begin later? Were these 1950's drafts used when the ICC was formed?
The Cato Institute citation included specifically opposes a comparison of Nuremberg and the ICC. The first sentence twists its actual context. I'm not certain if it is approprate?
Does the article need this paragraph?
How might we attain a NPOV in regard to Nuremberg as relevant analagous tribunal? Raggz 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article mistates it's supporting reference when it says "However, public opinion polls routinely show strong popular support for the Court: the most recent poll, conducted in February 2005, found that 69% of Americans supported U.S. participation in the ICC.[69]"
Consider the title of this supporting reference? "Large Bipartisan Majority of Americans Favors Referring Darfur War Crime Cases to International Criminal Court" It goes on to say "However, a majority of Americans (60%) favor referring these cases to the International Criminal Court rather than using a temporary tribunal, as the administration has proposed."
I will delete this misleading statement (above) soon, because it misrepresents it's reference source. Does anyone object? Raggz 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The United States is an advocate for increased ICC civil rights. The ICC decision to limit these to their present level was among the reasons that the United States did not ratify the ICC treaty.
Can we agree that this statement meets NPOV standards? It is a fact, check the US Department of State website. Raggz 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article claims "A further 41 states have signed but not ratified the treaty;[10] the law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty."[11] This reference does not support it's claim.
"Article 18: Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force. A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed. [5]
The US for one example does NOT meet the criteria under Article 18, so it clearly does not apply. [6] [7]This statement reflects my POV and can be supported. The text in the article is misleading factually, and reflects a POV.
So the question is: Is the Vienna Convention so important that it need be included in THIS article? Should the debate and article be seperate, or does it belong in this article? Raggz 07:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Your point is taken. The Head of State signed a treaty. Everyone understood the context. The Versailes Treaty does not require documentation for a Head of State signing a treaty. Regardless of my legally factual domestic claims, the Head of State signed a treaty. You also correctly point out that my references cannot be cited. The Government of the United States being perhaps wiser than I am, does not contest your point. I still do. This is a serious point of law that the US choses not to contest. This distinction is too fine of a point for an adolescent student consulting an encyclopedia. The article should list the US as a signatory and a long explanation of the unusual circumstances should be cited in a reference for those few who read these. Raggz 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Raggz, I can't understand this edit at all.
You've deleted the criticism section without giving any explanation. That section was crucial. (I'm kinda shocked that you would remove the statement that “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers” as I thought you felt very strongly about this.)
Much of the new stuff is unsourced and kinda puzzling (like “there are no nations who oppose the ICC” and “the ICC relationship with the UN grows more controversial”).
I thought you agreed to wait a few days before deleting the “Opposition to the Court” section, but you deleted it a few hours later — did I misunderstand you?
I'm reverting the most controversial changes but keeping as much as I can.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
From an American perspective, the Joint Resolution of the US Congress to use all necessary force to recover any American national held by the ICC is remarkable. The significance in the article is understated, it is a full conditional Congressional Declaration of War, unlike anything in American history. No other conditional declaration of war has been enacted prior. Under US law, the taking of one American hostage authorizes the President to immediately use all necessary force. This is most remarkable and unprecedented threat.
It authorizes (if necessary) the complete destruction of any nation or nations holding a single American under ICC jurisdiction. The Government of the United States never authorized this level of force against North Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: "Congress voted, on 1964-08-07, on a joint resolution which authorized the president "to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."[5] The Government of the United States never authorized "all necessary force" against North Vietnam. It has authorized "all necessary force" against any nation holding Americans under ICC jurisdiction, a far more grim authorization of force.
This authorization is not opposition to the ICC. It is opposition to any illegal application of jurisdiction by the ICC. Americans are not exempted from, or above any law. Americans violate laws and are tried and convicted for these every day by other governments. The only courts with recognized jurisdiction are the members of the United Nations and the UN itself. No other courts may capture or hold Americans hostage, and any nation that does so under ICC (rather than national) jurisdiction has declared war upon the United States.
The UN and the World Court may try Americans, as may any government that is a UN member. The ICC may not, unless the UN authorizes jurisdiction. Raggz 05:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"However, Human Rights Watch argues that “the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written”, including “presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy”.[61] 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.”[62]"
This part of the article fails Wikipedia standards which state "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies." [8]. Specifically this challenge is based upon Wikipedia policy which states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
The Human Rights Watch reference fails this test. They state "‘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 article has not verified basic facts. The US Constitution recognizes the right to trial by jury and the ICC does not. To suggest that the right to trial by jury is not a US fundamental constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is to mistate the facts. Thus the reference fails (for lack of fact checking), as does the language (above) which I have deleted. Raggz 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Raggz 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If I have time, I'll archive this page in a couple of days. If there are any discussions that people think are active and should be kept, just list them below. Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
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 |
Amassador John Boulton articulated the position of the US Government on the ICC, and this is now posted. [1]Currently Human Rights Watch speaks to the US constitutionality of the ICC, and it cites only an advocacy POV for support. Why have Human Rights Watch express a POV?
The US Government speaks to the constitutionality of the ICC. Any opinions that oppose the official view of the government should cite at minimum a US court decision or other official source, not a political advocacy document that is intended to express a single POV. [2]
The actual position of the US Government on the ICC is the actual position of the US Government, we should include only official sources to express the POV of the US Government. Human Rights Watch may not contradict it in regard to what it's positions are. Raggz 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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
I would like to see most of the stuff about the US objections moved to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration
The US objections are central to this page and should not be moved.
The US objections represent a fundamental issue not addressed. Different people in different nations have different legal human rights. All have those guaranteed by the UN Charter, but some (including those in the US) legally have greater human rights than do most. The government of the US cannot constitutionally enter into any treaty that diminishes the legal human rights of her citizens at any trial. If the Senate were to do so, the Supreme Court would strike the treaty on constitutional grounds. An American tried before the ICC is denied any form of appeal, and this court operates without any formal judicial peer-review. For many similar reasons, the greater legal human rights of US citizens preclude US participation with the ICC. The human rights guaranteed by the ICC need to US standards, or higher, otherwise the US Government lacks the constitutional authority to enter into any ICC treaty. An increase in human rights for all would be a good thing?
There are many people for whom the human rights guaranteed by the UN Charter are merely theoretical. Their governments offer them greatly reduced legal access to human rights. Such Nations chose to deny the ICC any jurisdiction.
The US objections dominate this discussion because the issue of dissimilar human rights in each nation is the primary obstacle to expansion of ICC jurisdiction. ^^^^ —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Raggz (
talk •
contribs)
19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm removing this paragraph:
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)
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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
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:
(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
How could any signature offered without the authority of the government be binding? Raggz 09:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No executive order may conflict with an actual law, if it does it is automatically nullified (Presidents may not pass laws). No executive order can serve as a treaty, in other words no executive order may bind the Government of the US as a treaty would.
The example above includes a legislative act, so even without an executive order it is enforcible internally.
To bind the US internationally, this is what a treaty does. Any action so binding the US must meet the constitutional requirements for any treaty.
"... 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." Not true. No treaty is binding upon the US unless it was entered into with the authority of the US Government. No federal officer or agency may do so without the formal consent of the Senate. Raggz 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
The US POV is irrelevant really, the ICC has no jurisdiction over US citizens and never will have this. The only time that there is relevance to the US in regard to this topic is when (1) the United Nations is involved, because the US is a member of the UN - or (2) the greater human rights guaranteed within the US are discussed.
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)
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))
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)
Citizens of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Germany may legally be tried by judges but American citizens may not be. Americans have civil rights that prohibit this, the others do not. International law is in practice a blend of national and international law, this was especially true for Nuremburg.
The fundamental human rights of Americans are not "in their minds - but are guaranteed by the US Constitution. The ICC must recognize the fundamental human rights of Americans if it is to ever have jurisdiction over Americans.
United States Constitution - Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury (of peers), guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.
The greater legal and fundamental human rights of US citizens deserves a section, because presently the ICC neither recognizes these nor would it accomodate these. Raggz 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Added some policies from the past which today would constitute grounds for prosecution by the ICC.-- Nomen Nescio 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Allegations are generally irrelevant, convictions are not. A very high standard should be used for mere allegations unless (1) they are raised by the UN Security Council or (2) appear before the ICC. Raggz 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Raggz 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Request article on internationnal criminal court procedures
Deleted, not worth mentioning. The Prosecutor didn't mention it in his recent communication. Otto ter Haar 07:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
The difference is that proposals to amend the US Constitution to REDUCE human rights would never pass. You use examples of nations that amended their constitutions to INCREASE human rights? If not, how did they persuade those people to give up their human rights in exchange for ICC jurisdiction? Perhaps human rights are just more valued by Americans? I don't know of your examples who gave up their rights, and look forward to learning why? Raggz 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
The ICC article is about an emerging judicial system, and about it's struggle to be relevant. To move the discussion of the process of ICC emergence is to presume that the ICC has already attained wide jurisdiction, which it has not. When (and if) this occurs, at this point the problems the ICC curently faces will have passed. Presently the ICC faces credibility and jurisidictional challenges that should be addressed. These exisit, we need to address them. Raggz 09:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
How about his:
Not perfect, but what do you think? Nomen Nescio 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The position of the United States should be correctly stated. If incorrectly stated, it should be re-stated with the corrct citation. There is no need for any of us to edit the official postion of the US Government, nor to "spin" it. There is n obligation to correctly state this.
Does anyone have an actual reference where the US Government has taken any position other than to deny ICC juridiction over her own citizens? If such an oficial statement of the US Government actually exists, it is highly relevant to post it. Please consider that it is the duty of the United States Govrnment to protect all of her citizens from the jurisdiction of the ICC, because the ICC does not recognize the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans. So - who has a citation that the US opposes the trial of anyone but Americans by the ICC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raggz ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
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)
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)
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)
Hi, I'm new to English version of Wiki but I've contributed on updates related to Japan before and I did so just moments before this entry too. You mention the Crime of Aggression in the very first part of the page but you only mention that CAG is NOT within the jurisdiction of the Court very briefly with explanations, very late in the page under Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. I think this structure is problematic because it is a given fact that CAG DOES NOT fall under the Court's jurisdiction until the definition of the crime is set, as you explained in the section. I think some section of this explanatory part should be included in the VERY BEGINNING so that it will not make viewers who only take a glance of the first few paragraphs of the page and say, "Hey, the ICC DOES have jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression!", having misguided knowledge about the Court's ACTUAL jurisdiction. So can the very first sentence of the page be rephrased as something like the following?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is also desgined to have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but it can only exercise it when the defenition of the crime is set (Add a reference link connecting to the reasons here --> This one).
Would this work for you? As an advocate of the ICC myself and being a member of the NGO Coalition for the ICC (CICC), I find it pertinent to have this information laid out in the very beginning to facilitate better and correct understanding of the Court's capabilities and limits. I'd appreciate it if you can consider making this change. Thank you.-- Etranger3 01 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
An IP has removed the statement that “69% of Americans supported U.S. participation in the ICC”, claiming that “that is NOT what this source said....”
The source was a media release by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, describing a poll of 1,182 Americans. It says:
I'm restoring the statement. If anyone wants to change it, please read the source first.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The opinion polls on this point are misleading, at any rate. As evidence for this clearly POV position, it is hard to find a mainstream politician with national ambitions willing to go out on a limb in support of the US signing on to the ICC. If 69% of the American public truly supported the ICC, I doubt you would see such a dearth of support for it in the American political sphere. What I expect you are seeing is people's responses to the question, "Do you support the U.S. joining the International Criminal Court to prosecute those who commit genocide,...etc. etc.?" Rephrase the question to "Do you support the U.S. joining the ICC if it meant subjecting U.S. sovereignty to an international organization with the power to try U.S. leaders and soldiers,...etc. etc.?" and I doubt you'd get the same answer. So, at best, that statement about widespread U.S. public support for the ICC is misleading. Epstein's Mother 12:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
THe survey saying Americans supported the court was extremely biased, I removed the reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:128.230.188.84 ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The following paragraph was recently added to the lead section:
I'm removing it for the following reasons:
Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No one has offered any quote or support for the theory that the US Government in any way "opposes" the ICC. Please do so, or refrain? The US Government does oppose ICC jurisdiction over US citizens, (unless properly referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council. There is great difference between the legally appropriate decision (of any nation)not to enter into this treaty - and to "oppose" other nations entering into whatever treaties they may wish to have?
Article 6 of the US Constitution denies the authority of any branch of government to enact any law or treaty that diminishes any of the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. If the ICC is willing to guarantee US citizens these human rights, only then can such a treaty legally be entered into.
Surveys of public opinion within the US are irrelevant since the US Constitution bars acceptance of the ICC jurisdiction unless it accepts the fundamental human rights of Americans.
(I'm new to Wiki, so hints as to format and etiquette are welcome.) Raggz 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Here you make an excellent point. There are many civil liberties recognized in this large world we live in, and nowhere is there a government that recognizes them all. The civil right of convicted criminals to not be executed is not recognized by some US states. (Btw, the US Government lacks constitutional authority to ban the death penalty, we have a "federal system" leaving this to the states, but I digress). Canada will not respect extradition to the US if the death penalty may result. This is to be respected, it is an expression of Canada's right to determine what civil rights will and will not be respected. The US takes an analagous position with Canada, asking her to agree not to extradite Americans to any jurisdiction that does not respect their right of jury trial (diplomacy - as the Statute of Rome encourages under Article 98).
Will the ICC respect the right of Americans to their fundamental civil liberties? One of these is the right to trial by jury (what's the big deal about this anyway at the ICC) and the right to bear arms, and the right to confront their accuser? Yes - or No? Will Americans fundamental civil rights be respected?
I note that STILL, no one has offered any reference that shows that (1) the US Government opposes the ICC (other than jurisdiction over Americans) or (2) that the US opposes any nation from joining the ICC, or (3) that diplomacy under Aricle 98 of the Rome Statute is in any way improper or illegal under international law.
You can obviously get POV-driven quotes, but serious references are at this point ZERO. There will be none offered? Raggz 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the ICC an attempt to build an alternative to the United Nations? The United Nations does everything that the ICC does, and more? Is it a valid POV to see the ICC as an attempt to create another UN? If not, why not?
Should nations committed to the protection of human rights through actions of the United Nations oppose the ICC as an unneeded competitor? Why does the world need more than one judicial system, why have competing courts? Raggz 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing this.
This article is about the International Criminal Court, not the United States. Granted, some aspects of America's relationship with the ICC may be notable enough to mention here (such as Bilateral Immunity Agreements or the UN Security Resolutions shielding UN peacekeepers from ICC prosecution). However, discussions about the rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights, or the executive branch's authority to enter into international agreements, are off-topic. There is a separate article about the United States and the International Criminal Court, where this stuff may be relevant.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This reflects an intrinsic POV in editing that detracts from the article. If the editorial intent is to exclude the conflict between civil liberties as recognized within the US and those recognized elsewhere, fine. This is not the case. The article needs to be seriously edited to remove POV based statements about this conflict. For example Human Rights Watch is used to speak for the US position on the ICC issues - and you edit out the official position of the US Government? Why can't the statements of the US Government speak for the US Govrnment? Why should you use Human Rights Watch POV in lieu of the official position? I am a new user, how may I appeal this seemingly abitrary edit? If you include the official objections of the US Government in the article, why edit the actual objections in favor of Human Rights Watch?
Please explain why you deleted the official position of the United States in favor of a Human Rights Watch opinion on the official position of the United States Government?
Do you agree that the ICC is attempting to emerge as a sustainable global judicial authority, and that the basis for the US-led opposition is a critical issue for the future of the ICC? Why are you trying to edit an attempt to balance this discussion? You can edit out the one-sided US references, that too would be fair.
Do you agree that this conflict is about the different civil liberties recognized by the US and the ICC? (If not, do you agree that the two bodies recognize fundamentally different civil liberties?) If the current POV- based statements (often with weak or no support) are to be retained - then it is necessary to reach a NPOV by permitting fair and balanced additions?
Do you agree that the Rome Statute denies the long-accepted civil liberty of Trial by Jury? I protest your removal of my edit that this civil liberty is denied by the Rome Statute. It is a fact of relevance, and the center of the International debate. You should not edit this away to protect your POV.
You claim that the US "unsigned" the ICC treaty. I offered the relevant US law proving that the treaty was never entered into by the US Government, nor was it ever "unsigned". Did Clinton return and cross-out or obliterate his signature? Do you have some reference that proves he did this? I protest your removal of the references necessary to prove that this treaty was never signed, much less "unsigned". If you bring it up, I should be able to offer the documents disproving it? So drop your claim, - or support it and permit a balancing POV. Either way, strive for a NPOV.
Just delete all references to the ICC/US issues - or permit a NPOV by extensive refrences. Either is a fair way to edit. Raggz 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I added "The Rome Statute does not recognize the Right to Jury Trial".
This is an important fact. First is is merely a disclosure of what civil liberties are respected by the ICC and which are not. Second, this ommission is central to the future growth of the ICC, because ommitting it requires the US Govenment to organize global opposition.
These eleven words bring this section to a NPOV. Why hide central facts from the reader? Raggz 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is unclear as to how judicial objectivity is maintained prior to trial. Under rights of the accused, it is claimed there is a preumption of innocence. In this section, it describes the Court taking sides with the "victim". Now we all want victims to be assisted, but BEFORE a trial is held, how is it determined who is the victim?
Of course victims require assistance, but shouldn't this assistance be handled by a neutral party? Raggz 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
"Many American critics of the Court, such as the Heritage Foundation, claim that “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.”[56]
You insist upon using the Heritage Foundation to articulate the official policy of the United States Government. I deleted this, and I added the official policy of the United States Government instead. Why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is better qualified to speak on what US policy is than the official policy statement? Raggz 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a section claiming that the United States "opposes" the ICC, and the editor refuses to support this claim. (The seven year old CNN transcript cited does not support this claim.) I will delete this section if it is not supported. Does anyone have ANY support for this theory that the US opposes the ICC, that the official US statement on this is a lie? Please post it. Raggz 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
ALL of the Article 98 discussion needs revision to attain a NPOV. Before I edit it to attain this objective, is there any objection? Article 98 is part of the Statute and is being used exactly as intended, for diplomacy regarding ICC jurisdiction. Does anyone have a problem with stating that Article 98 diplomacy was intended when Article 98 was included? What we have here are people with a POV that Article 98 is a bad Article? Well, this POV is irrelevant to the article, isn't it? We also have people with a POV that Artcle 98 diplomacy by the US is bad diplomacy? This POV is irrelevant and will soon be deleted.
Does anyone have a problem with the goal of a NPOV? Do we all agree that the POVs above must go? Raggz 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
and consent to surrender
I agree, there is no opposition, why have a section on this? I would like to see a Future Challenges of the Court Section. The US is now irrelevant to the ICC. The only remaining US issue is jurisdiction over US citizens, and Article 98 agreements have largely resolved this issue. The ICC will just ignore Americans anyway. What is the idea, a New Orleans Tribunal? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Do people have questions about the US issues? If so, then answering these would have purpose. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me, we will wait a few days, as long as they offer a reliable source to support this theory. For example: a citation that shows that the US has tried to keep one nation from joining the court? Can we agree that citations as to unsupported opinions should not count? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are Article 98 agreements important to this Article? I don't see any relevance to the Article. The ICC won't be aresting or trying Americans anyway? Can you imagine a case where this would happen? Americans who commit crimes will be tried by the same courts that try them now? Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Presently the text is pointless, there is no context and no conclusion, just a thinly layered POV that the US is doing something improper by conducting normal diplomacy. I would like an A-98 section somewhere, because people are curious about this. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So post some of these European scholars on A-98? IF we get into A-98 we should give the discussion context, beginning with why should anyone care about bi-lateral diplomacy. I don't know why anyone would, but I can learn. Raggz 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states "On 2002-05-06, the Bush administration announced it was cancelling the United States' signature of the treaty."[68] This reference does not support this statement. The Government of the United States actually said in the referenced document "... the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000". I suggest substitution of the actual statement, actually I prefer that the whole signing issue it be deleted as it is irrelevant? Write it as you wish, just don't incorrectly claim that the US canclled this treaty, your reference uses "no legal obligations", not cancelled, that phrase would be fine.
Vice-president Al Gore did the same thing, when signing the Kyoto Protocol. Look at how that article handled this? "The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified." "On 1998-11-12, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[42] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification." Raggz 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"The movement for the creation of an international court to deal with the problem of crimes committed against humanity gained force after the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, established to punish serious crimes committed by the losing sides during World War II. At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Law Commission drafted two draft statutes by the early 1950s, but these were shelved as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.[2]"
This paragraph suggests that Nuremberg and Tokyo are analagous international courts - but the citation itself makes multiple stong cases otherwise. To claim that Nuremberg is an analgous court is to advance a legitimate POV. There is nothing wrong with making this claim, and there is ample support for it. There is another legitimate POV that Nuremberg has no relevance to the ICC. How can these competing POVs be balanced here to attain a NPOV? Really getting into this would take space. I suggest dropping the controversial implication that Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunls are in any way related to the ICC? However the editor manages to attain a NPOV will be fine by me. It is implied, not stated, I could live with this paragraph unchanged, but it could be a lot better.
The UN was the focus for international justice in the 1950's and 60's. Didn't the ICC movement begin later? Were these 1950's drafts used when the ICC was formed?
The Cato Institute citation included specifically opposes a comparison of Nuremberg and the ICC. The first sentence twists its actual context. I'm not certain if it is approprate?
Does the article need this paragraph?
How might we attain a NPOV in regard to Nuremberg as relevant analagous tribunal? Raggz 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article mistates it's supporting reference when it says "However, public opinion polls routinely show strong popular support for the Court: the most recent poll, conducted in February 2005, found that 69% of Americans supported U.S. participation in the ICC.[69]"
Consider the title of this supporting reference? "Large Bipartisan Majority of Americans Favors Referring Darfur War Crime Cases to International Criminal Court" It goes on to say "However, a majority of Americans (60%) favor referring these cases to the International Criminal Court rather than using a temporary tribunal, as the administration has proposed."
I will delete this misleading statement (above) soon, because it misrepresents it's reference source. Does anyone object? Raggz 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The United States is an advocate for increased ICC civil rights. The ICC decision to limit these to their present level was among the reasons that the United States did not ratify the ICC treaty.
Can we agree that this statement meets NPOV standards? It is a fact, check the US Department of State website. Raggz 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article claims "A further 41 states have signed but not ratified the treaty;[10] the law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty."[11] This reference does not support it's claim.
"Article 18: Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force. A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed. [5]
The US for one example does NOT meet the criteria under Article 18, so it clearly does not apply. [6] [7]This statement reflects my POV and can be supported. The text in the article is misleading factually, and reflects a POV.
So the question is: Is the Vienna Convention so important that it need be included in THIS article? Should the debate and article be seperate, or does it belong in this article? Raggz 07:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Your point is taken. The Head of State signed a treaty. Everyone understood the context. The Versailes Treaty does not require documentation for a Head of State signing a treaty. Regardless of my legally factual domestic claims, the Head of State signed a treaty. You also correctly point out that my references cannot be cited. The Government of the United States being perhaps wiser than I am, does not contest your point. I still do. This is a serious point of law that the US choses not to contest. This distinction is too fine of a point for an adolescent student consulting an encyclopedia. The article should list the US as a signatory and a long explanation of the unusual circumstances should be cited in a reference for those few who read these. Raggz 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Raggz, I can't understand this edit at all.
You've deleted the criticism section without giving any explanation. That section was crucial. (I'm kinda shocked that you would remove the statement that “Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers” as I thought you felt very strongly about this.)
Much of the new stuff is unsourced and kinda puzzling (like “there are no nations who oppose the ICC” and “the ICC relationship with the UN grows more controversial”).
I thought you agreed to wait a few days before deleting the “Opposition to the Court” section, but you deleted it a few hours later — did I misunderstand you?
I'm reverting the most controversial changes but keeping as much as I can.
Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
From an American perspective, the Joint Resolution of the US Congress to use all necessary force to recover any American national held by the ICC is remarkable. The significance in the article is understated, it is a full conditional Congressional Declaration of War, unlike anything in American history. No other conditional declaration of war has been enacted prior. Under US law, the taking of one American hostage authorizes the President to immediately use all necessary force. This is most remarkable and unprecedented threat.
It authorizes (if necessary) the complete destruction of any nation or nations holding a single American under ICC jurisdiction. The Government of the United States never authorized this level of force against North Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: "Congress voted, on 1964-08-07, on a joint resolution which authorized the president "to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."[5] The Government of the United States never authorized "all necessary force" against North Vietnam. It has authorized "all necessary force" against any nation holding Americans under ICC jurisdiction, a far more grim authorization of force.
This authorization is not opposition to the ICC. It is opposition to any illegal application of jurisdiction by the ICC. Americans are not exempted from, or above any law. Americans violate laws and are tried and convicted for these every day by other governments. The only courts with recognized jurisdiction are the members of the United Nations and the UN itself. No other courts may capture or hold Americans hostage, and any nation that does so under ICC (rather than national) jurisdiction has declared war upon the United States.
The UN and the World Court may try Americans, as may any government that is a UN member. The ICC may not, unless the UN authorizes jurisdiction. Raggz 05:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"However, Human Rights Watch argues that “the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written”, including “presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy”.[61] 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.”[62]"
This part of the article fails Wikipedia standards which state "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies." [8]. Specifically this challenge is based upon Wikipedia policy which states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
The Human Rights Watch reference fails this test. They state "‘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 article has not verified basic facts. The US Constitution recognizes the right to trial by jury and the ICC does not. To suggest that the right to trial by jury is not a US fundamental constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is to mistate the facts. Thus the reference fails (for lack of fact checking), as does the language (above) which I have deleted. Raggz 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Raggz 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If I have time, I'll archive this page in a couple of days. If there are any discussions that people think are active and should be kept, just list them below. Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)