![]() | 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 |
This article contains the following criticism:
"Critics of the Court argue that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”.[38] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice"
I am fine with this criticism being included, but how about putting in the counter points?
According to Human Rights Watch:
"Many safeguards exist in the ICC treaty to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. For example, all indictments will require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges, which will examine the evidence supporting the indictment before issuing it. The accused and any concerned countries will have an opportunity to challenge the indictment during confirmation hearings before the Pre-Trial Chamber. In addition, any investigation initiated by the prosecutor will first have to be approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber.
Prosecutors and judges all undergo rigorous scrutiny before they are elected and appointed to the court. The treaty establishes strict criteria for the selection of the prosecutor and the judges, requiring experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond reproach. They are prohibited from any activity during their term in office that might jeopardize their independence, and can be excused from particular cases if there is any question of partiality. Ultimately, in the unlikely event that they abuse their powers, they can be impeached."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/qna.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.133.192 ( talk) 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I added this new section as the Reader should be able to access the degree of ICC effectiveness. Please edit in additional appropriate effectiveness information, as I am not an expert on this subject. Raggz ( talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting this edit, which transformed the section on Iraq from a one-paragraph summary to a series of random quotes from the Prosecutor's letter.
First of all, I think a concise summary is much easier for the reader to understand than a series of quotes.
Second, it makes no sense for us to go into so much detail about Iraq, when ICC hasn't even opened an investigation into the situation there. I don't understand why we should be giving more space to Iraq than we do to Darfur or any of the other situations which the Prosecutor has actually investigated. Moreover, this article clearly links to both The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the prosecutor's letter. Any readers who are interested in long, direct quotes from the prosecutor's analysis are capable of clicking the links and reading it for themselves.
Thirdly, by taking quotes out of context, this section distorts the Prosecutor's conclusions. For example, under the heading "Allegations concerning War Crimes", the Prosecutor is quoted as saying that "the available information did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed". However, if you read the source ( PDF), it's clear that this quote referred specifically to the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks, not to war crimes in general. (In fact the Prosecutor concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes had been committed.)
Sideshow Bob Roberts ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on membership states:
Very interesting point, and I would argue highly relevant. A cursory look at th list would confirm that only a minority of the world's population are covered. My question: if I got the list of countries' populations, say from List of countries by population and worked out the proportion of the world's population covered by the court, would that be Wikipedia:Original Research? AndrewRT( Talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The See also section consists of six seemingly random entries, most of which are already linked in the footers at the bottom of the article. [2] Sure, some people who read the ICC article will also be interested in command responsibility and the World Federalist Movement, but I don't see why we're singling out these articles as if they're somehow more relevant than the thousands of other Wikipedia articles about criminal law, human rights, international relations, etc.
I'm removing the section, as I don't think it's of any use to the reader. The categories and navigational templates are just fine. If someone wants to restore this section, can we at least keep it focused on topics that are of particular interest to readers of the ICC article, and not just a random selection of articles that are related to international law, world government, or whatever? Cheers, Polemarchus ( talk) 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
ICC expenditure, 2007 | |
Item | Expenditure (thousands of euros) [1] |
Judges | 6,893 |
Consultants | 318 |
Other staff | 46,932 |
Travel | 3,682 |
Hospitality | 46 |
Contractual services (including training) |
8,302 |
General operating expenses | 9,490 |
Supplies and materials | 1,080 |
Furniture and equipment | 3,717 |
Total | 80,459 |
I added this table to the article a few weeks ago but looking at it now I'm not sure it adds anything, because the article already mentions that the court spent €80.5 million in 2007 and readers who want more detail can follow the links provided. I'd be interested to hear others' opinions before I delete it though. Polemarchus ( talk) 00:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"The Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council."
How can the court prosecute the president of Sudan since his country never recognised the court? Mitch1981 ( talk) 19:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The Gaza conflict is just one of the 100+ situations about which the ICC has received complaints. It might be worth discussing over at Complaints to the International Criminal Court but I see no reason to single it out for special attention in the main ICC article. Of course, if the prosecutor decides to open an investigation, that's a different story. Regards, Polemarchus ( talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I am curious how to work with international court or be part of it. I am currently taking courses as paralegal to get my 2-year degree and also have completed 2 years out of 4 of criminal justice. Are there any accomplishments to be done to be able to work with international court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.209.7 ( talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, links 7, 8, 14, 15, and 16 are all dead. Most of those are internal ICC pages that seem to no longer exist. They may have only been moved. Links farther down the article should probably be checked as well. Oneforlogic ( talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the links from the ICC website are still down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.17.158 ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's becoming overly difficult to change the simple map. Could someone please dye Bangladesh in green as it has become a full member on June 1, 2010, upon ratification on March 23, 2010? Thank you. -- EBB ( talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Today, the ICC prosecutor has applied for summonses for 6 Kenyans, however I'm not sure quite how to update the article, they haven't been formally indicted, but my legal knowledge is lacking when it comes to distinguishing between an indictment, a charge, an accusation etc. I wondered if someone can update the article. There are references here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11996652 http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/Ocampo%20names%20Kenya%20chaos%20suspects/-/1064/1072864/-/15awvwuz/-/index.html Pi Talk - Contribs 12:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
CNN has reported that the ICC has accepted this claim and allowed the NTC to bury him. It's reported here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/20/world/africa/libya-war/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoetheMoe25 ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC) The ICC has announced that the investigation of Muammar Gaddafi is practically closed and that they are only focusing on Senussi and his son Saif. It's reported here: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=740135&publicationSubCategoryId=200 JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A number of sources point to criticism, principally within Africa, of the ICC's role in that continent. The following are examples which could be used in drawing up a well-sourced section of text: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]... etc. Real world means that I don't have time to do this myself ... sorry. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is incorrect and should read People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) as being the country the complaint is being made against. The basis for the complaint from what I read on the ICC website is 1) the bombing of Yeongpyeong Island and 2) the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan. While I am not an active editor anymore on Wikipedia, I hope someone that is familiar with this article will correct this. Thanks Davidpdx ( talk) 13:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This lead is a beast, And for no good reason. Most of this content does not belong here. And the issue of them targeting Africa seems to have been skipped and footnoted. Well that should be reflected in the lede in a summed up fashion. The lede needs a serious haircut. -- Inayity ( talk) 20:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As of May 2013, the Court's first trial, the Lubanga trial in the situation of the DR Congo, is in the appeals phase after the accused was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison and a reparations regime was established. The Katanga-Chui trial regarding the DR Congo was concluded in May 2012; Mr Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted and released. The Prosecutor has appealed the acquittal. The decision regarding Mr Katanga is pending. The Bemba trial regarding the Central African Republic is ongoing with the defence presenting its evidence. A fourth trial chamber, for the Banda-Jerbo trial in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, has been established with the trial scheduled to begin in May 2014. There are a fifth and a sixth trial scheduled to begin in July 2013 and a date to be determined respectively in the Kenya situation, namely the Kenyatta and the Ruto-Sang trials. The decision on the confirmation of charges in the Laurent Gbagbo case in the Côte d'Ivoire situation is pending after hearings took place in February 2013. The confirmation of charges hearing in the Ntaganda case in the DR Congo situation is scheduled to begin in September 2013.
(i) if the accused is a national of a State party to the Rome Statute (ii) if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a State Party (iii) if a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.[21] (iv) if a State not party to the Statute 'accepts' the Court's jurisdiction. The ICC is intended complement existing national judicial systems, and may only exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. The current ICC President, Sang-Hyun Song, has described the Court as a 'failsafe' justice mechanism which holds that States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes occuring within their jurisdiction. [22][23] [24](see spelling mistakes)-- Inayity ( talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry,Int21h. You are right it was important, after doing it I came back today to add it back in. BTW how do you edit these template text used in the doc?-- Inayity ( talk) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the template for 1 I did not know how to edit it, and I am pretty sure most editors will not know how to edit it. The other issue is because the template is also used in the body of the text, if i was to trim it to make it concise for the lede, it will also alter it in the body. Now the body and the lead are different because the lead is a summary, it should avoid certain details found in the body. So this is why I did not agree having Templates in the lead. -- Inayity ( talk) 17:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I concur in your judgment, Inayity. I propose we replace all instantiations of the template. Templates are not for substantive content in a small number of articles. I am sure EBB is a solid editor and means well, but it is simply not the case that templates cannot be replaced manually with good cause. It is a weak use case for a template to begin with, and using it to simply fork static content is simply improper, if only for the problem we have here. Here we have editors complain that the template content must meet the editorial format of all articles its used inline, which is in effect creating a burden whereas the template is supposed to reduce the burden of editing, thereby defeating its purpose. I have meant to replace it the first I saw it but I just did not for whatever reason, probably because I saw no need to edit it myself. But since you want to edit the content, you were rebuffed, and I did not even see the discussion because the content discussion for this page needed to be made elsewhere, I think it should be replaced. Int21h ( talk) 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Minor edit after the fact. -- EBB ( talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In the "criticism" section, this article talks about insufficient checks and balances. That's fine, but then it mentions Henry A. Kissinger's article, “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction." I was curious, so I looked up this article. It's a great article, but it has nothing to do with insufficient checks and balances. In fact, the guy really likes the ICC! I don't know why someone cited him, but it ought to be removed, because it's misrepresenting his views. 72.80.198.233 ( talk) 18:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
However, the summit did not endorse the proposal for a mass withdrawal from the ICC due to lack of support for the idea.[133] Despite these calls the ICC went ahead with calling for Ruto to attend his trial.[134] Not clear what it is trying to say (maybe it is me). -- Inayity ( talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
With this edit (and a few edits before as well), info on Kenia was added, that in my view i) was already partly presented elsewhere (selective prosecution), ii) was not written from a neutral point of view (check the adjectives etcetc), and iii) was not in line with the transcript of the World Radio Netherlands source… I have therefore removed it and suggest to discuss here -if something needs to be included- what it should be…. Please do not readd it, until there is consensus for inclusion… L.tak ( talk)
Firstly, its KENYA NOT Kenia! What the hell is 'Kenia'?!?!?! Get it right next time, son!! Secondly, what Wikipedia rules have I broken??? Stop being petty! Deleting our posts all the time. Looks to me like someone has a problem with the TRUTH!!!
I have quoted Ocampo verbatim! The interview is publicly available here for all to see >>>>>> Moreno Ocampo's interview with Radio Netherlands Worldwide(RNW)<ref>http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/ocampo-exclusive</ref>
It is a shocking revelation to us here in Kenya, after all the hope people put in ICC just to realize White folks had greedy plans to plant puppets in our government..... We are pissed beyond! So deal with it!!!
STOP DELETING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
>>> WATCH THE CLIP AND YOU'LL GET IT.....but if you are too lazy to, READ THIS & LOOKOUT FOR THE BOLD ---> “There were some DIPLOMATS asking me to DO SOMETHING more to PREVENT KENYATTA OR RUTO from running in the elections. And I said ‘it’s NOT my job’....." <ref>http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/ocampo-exclusive</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
>>>>> I have deleted the word SHOCKING..... Hurrah, here's a cookie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
>>>>>> You're right am pissed off! You piss us off when you delete legitimate posts here on Wikipedia. To us the real immaturity is a guy sitting behind his laptop waiting for me to upload text just for him to delete. Wikipedia isn't even interesting enuff for me to take this bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
MY ADVICE: Stop chasing (the few remaining) Wikipedians away. Gotta catch the Arsenal-ManU game now.... Listen, we've put references on the main article if you'd like to understand the Kenyan case more, I have to leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
PS: My team won!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I would propose removing the situation regarding the registered vessels from the "Detailed summary of investigations and prosecutions" and am fully aware that it was probably me who originally added it there. Given the sensitivity of this issue (there will almost certainly foul cries as citizens of Israel may justifiably be seen as the main "targets" of this referral), I would like to propose this here before the action. The reasoning behind my proposal is that there is a preliminiary examination but no investigation (in the formal sense) in the mentioned situation, not to speak of any prosecutions. Of course, if and when the Prosecutor opens an investigation, the situation should be included in that list immediately.
This proposal conincides with Ukraine accepting the Court's jurisdiction. The situation, however, is not fully comparable as for the Prosecutor to investigate in that situation a Pre-Trial Chamber must approve that move. This is not the case for the registered vessels situation where the Prosecutor may now open (sic!) an investigation on her own at any moment.
If there is no rejection of this proposal within the next week or so I would remove the registered vessels situation from the template.
By the way, with Ukraine now having accepted the jurisdiction it once agains turns out that it is becoming increasing difficult to keep all pages up to date. With the template which was removed about a year ago, this would have been much easier.
Happy Easter to whom it may concern. -- EBB ( talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the ICC claims jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes when a complaint is made by a party to the Treaty of Rome, even if the complaint is made against a state which is not a member (such as Israel). What is the legal basis for this? Brute force?
What would happen, for example, if Israel would assert that such an investigation and possible trial (presumably in absentia) has no legal basis that it recognizes and retaliated by passing internal legislation citing the illicit proceedings to be an conspiratorial attempt to abduct an Israeli citizen or citizens and name perhaps the chief prosecutor, judges and the head of government of any nation hosting the court (currently The Netherlands) for conspiracy to abduct an Israeli citizen? Other non-party nations might follow suit, perhaps eventually leading to a situation where no head of government would feel secure traveling out of one’s own nation. Is this situation tenable?
If the ICC court another incremental step into the introduction of a “One world government” that certain nations would be justified in resisting, militarily if necessary? I wouldn’t see a problem if both parties in such a dispute were parties to the court. However, if one is not then, again, what is the legal basis of the court? HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I am aware of this discussion, but I haven't found the time to catch up on everyone's positions and concerns, but I promise I will in time. I would like to remind everyone of the Wikipedia talk page guidelines (specifically to not use the talk page as a forum). That being said, I'm just leaving this message to inform everyone that I have completely restructured the "Jurisdiction" section of the article. I feel that it needed to be more clear and expansive. I recognize that this may have disrupted some editing regarding this discussion and I am happy to engage with everyone to address their concerns. Regards, – Zntrip 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
This sentence needs work, the original was better structured: The Office of the Prosecutor has opened nine official investigations and is also conducting an additional nine preliminary examinations. Thus far, 28 individuals have been indicted in the ICC, including Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo. Because all the of the official investigations thus far have been in Africa and because all of the indicted persons have been African, the Office of the Prosecutor has been criticized for allegedly disproportionately focusing on Africa and not beginning investigations outside of the continent. -- Inayity ( talk) 08:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Reading through the sections on temporal and territorial jurisdiction, a question formed in my mind. The sections refer to "states [becoming] a party to the statute" [Rome Statute]. When do they become a party? Upon signing, or upon approval, acceptance, accession, succession, or ratification? Every one is acknowledged as a different level of becoming a party to the statute on the UN webpage.
See https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en for more details.
Believe the article will be more useful if we are able to address this basic question. Bilhartz ( talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! My name is Mirelis Gonzalez and I'm a senior at Syracuse University studying International Relations. As part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy initiative, I plan on including a portion on NGO involvement with the ICC to this article. I've also been editing the entry on the United States and the International Criminal Court, and it'd be great if I could have the support of the Wikipedia community, especially those that have been working with both of the mentioned entries. I look forward to editing and working alongside everyone!
![]() | 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 |
This article contains the following criticism:
"Critics of the Court argue that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”.[38] Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice"
I am fine with this criticism being included, but how about putting in the counter points?
According to Human Rights Watch:
"Many safeguards exist in the ICC treaty to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. For example, all indictments will require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges, which will examine the evidence supporting the indictment before issuing it. The accused and any concerned countries will have an opportunity to challenge the indictment during confirmation hearings before the Pre-Trial Chamber. In addition, any investigation initiated by the prosecutor will first have to be approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber.
Prosecutors and judges all undergo rigorous scrutiny before they are elected and appointed to the court. The treaty establishes strict criteria for the selection of the prosecutor and the judges, requiring experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond reproach. They are prohibited from any activity during their term in office that might jeopardize their independence, and can be excused from particular cases if there is any question of partiality. Ultimately, in the unlikely event that they abuse their powers, they can be impeached."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/qna.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.133.192 ( talk) 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I added this new section as the Reader should be able to access the degree of ICC effectiveness. Please edit in additional appropriate effectiveness information, as I am not an expert on this subject. Raggz ( talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting this edit, which transformed the section on Iraq from a one-paragraph summary to a series of random quotes from the Prosecutor's letter.
First of all, I think a concise summary is much easier for the reader to understand than a series of quotes.
Second, it makes no sense for us to go into so much detail about Iraq, when ICC hasn't even opened an investigation into the situation there. I don't understand why we should be giving more space to Iraq than we do to Darfur or any of the other situations which the Prosecutor has actually investigated. Moreover, this article clearly links to both The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the prosecutor's letter. Any readers who are interested in long, direct quotes from the prosecutor's analysis are capable of clicking the links and reading it for themselves.
Thirdly, by taking quotes out of context, this section distorts the Prosecutor's conclusions. For example, under the heading "Allegations concerning War Crimes", the Prosecutor is quoted as saying that "the available information did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed". However, if you read the source ( PDF), it's clear that this quote referred specifically to the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks, not to war crimes in general. (In fact the Prosecutor concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes had been committed.)
Sideshow Bob Roberts ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on membership states:
Very interesting point, and I would argue highly relevant. A cursory look at th list would confirm that only a minority of the world's population are covered. My question: if I got the list of countries' populations, say from List of countries by population and worked out the proportion of the world's population covered by the court, would that be Wikipedia:Original Research? AndrewRT( Talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The See also section consists of six seemingly random entries, most of which are already linked in the footers at the bottom of the article. [2] Sure, some people who read the ICC article will also be interested in command responsibility and the World Federalist Movement, but I don't see why we're singling out these articles as if they're somehow more relevant than the thousands of other Wikipedia articles about criminal law, human rights, international relations, etc.
I'm removing the section, as I don't think it's of any use to the reader. The categories and navigational templates are just fine. If someone wants to restore this section, can we at least keep it focused on topics that are of particular interest to readers of the ICC article, and not just a random selection of articles that are related to international law, world government, or whatever? Cheers, Polemarchus ( talk) 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
ICC expenditure, 2007 | |
Item | Expenditure (thousands of euros) [1] |
Judges | 6,893 |
Consultants | 318 |
Other staff | 46,932 |
Travel | 3,682 |
Hospitality | 46 |
Contractual services (including training) |
8,302 |
General operating expenses | 9,490 |
Supplies and materials | 1,080 |
Furniture and equipment | 3,717 |
Total | 80,459 |
I added this table to the article a few weeks ago but looking at it now I'm not sure it adds anything, because the article already mentions that the court spent €80.5 million in 2007 and readers who want more detail can follow the links provided. I'd be interested to hear others' opinions before I delete it though. Polemarchus ( talk) 00:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"The Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council."
How can the court prosecute the president of Sudan since his country never recognised the court? Mitch1981 ( talk) 19:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The Gaza conflict is just one of the 100+ situations about which the ICC has received complaints. It might be worth discussing over at Complaints to the International Criminal Court but I see no reason to single it out for special attention in the main ICC article. Of course, if the prosecutor decides to open an investigation, that's a different story. Regards, Polemarchus ( talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I am curious how to work with international court or be part of it. I am currently taking courses as paralegal to get my 2-year degree and also have completed 2 years out of 4 of criminal justice. Are there any accomplishments to be done to be able to work with international court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.209.7 ( talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, links 7, 8, 14, 15, and 16 are all dead. Most of those are internal ICC pages that seem to no longer exist. They may have only been moved. Links farther down the article should probably be checked as well. Oneforlogic ( talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the links from the ICC website are still down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.17.158 ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's becoming overly difficult to change the simple map. Could someone please dye Bangladesh in green as it has become a full member on June 1, 2010, upon ratification on March 23, 2010? Thank you. -- EBB ( talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Today, the ICC prosecutor has applied for summonses for 6 Kenyans, however I'm not sure quite how to update the article, they haven't been formally indicted, but my legal knowledge is lacking when it comes to distinguishing between an indictment, a charge, an accusation etc. I wondered if someone can update the article. There are references here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11996652 http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/Ocampo%20names%20Kenya%20chaos%20suspects/-/1064/1072864/-/15awvwuz/-/index.html Pi Talk - Contribs 12:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
CNN has reported that the ICC has accepted this claim and allowed the NTC to bury him. It's reported here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/20/world/africa/libya-war/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoetheMoe25 ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC) The ICC has announced that the investigation of Muammar Gaddafi is practically closed and that they are only focusing on Senussi and his son Saif. It's reported here: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=740135&publicationSubCategoryId=200 JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A number of sources point to criticism, principally within Africa, of the ICC's role in that continent. The following are examples which could be used in drawing up a well-sourced section of text: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]... etc. Real world means that I don't have time to do this myself ... sorry. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is incorrect and should read People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) as being the country the complaint is being made against. The basis for the complaint from what I read on the ICC website is 1) the bombing of Yeongpyeong Island and 2) the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan. While I am not an active editor anymore on Wikipedia, I hope someone that is familiar with this article will correct this. Thanks Davidpdx ( talk) 13:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This lead is a beast, And for no good reason. Most of this content does not belong here. And the issue of them targeting Africa seems to have been skipped and footnoted. Well that should be reflected in the lede in a summed up fashion. The lede needs a serious haircut. -- Inayity ( talk) 20:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As of May 2013, the Court's first trial, the Lubanga trial in the situation of the DR Congo, is in the appeals phase after the accused was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison and a reparations regime was established. The Katanga-Chui trial regarding the DR Congo was concluded in May 2012; Mr Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted and released. The Prosecutor has appealed the acquittal. The decision regarding Mr Katanga is pending. The Bemba trial regarding the Central African Republic is ongoing with the defence presenting its evidence. A fourth trial chamber, for the Banda-Jerbo trial in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, has been established with the trial scheduled to begin in May 2014. There are a fifth and a sixth trial scheduled to begin in July 2013 and a date to be determined respectively in the Kenya situation, namely the Kenyatta and the Ruto-Sang trials. The decision on the confirmation of charges in the Laurent Gbagbo case in the Côte d'Ivoire situation is pending after hearings took place in February 2013. The confirmation of charges hearing in the Ntaganda case in the DR Congo situation is scheduled to begin in September 2013.
(i) if the accused is a national of a State party to the Rome Statute (ii) if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a State Party (iii) if a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.[21] (iv) if a State not party to the Statute 'accepts' the Court's jurisdiction. The ICC is intended complement existing national judicial systems, and may only exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. The current ICC President, Sang-Hyun Song, has described the Court as a 'failsafe' justice mechanism which holds that States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes occuring within their jurisdiction. [22][23] [24](see spelling mistakes)-- Inayity ( talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry,Int21h. You are right it was important, after doing it I came back today to add it back in. BTW how do you edit these template text used in the doc?-- Inayity ( talk) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the template for 1 I did not know how to edit it, and I am pretty sure most editors will not know how to edit it. The other issue is because the template is also used in the body of the text, if i was to trim it to make it concise for the lede, it will also alter it in the body. Now the body and the lead are different because the lead is a summary, it should avoid certain details found in the body. So this is why I did not agree having Templates in the lead. -- Inayity ( talk) 17:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I concur in your judgment, Inayity. I propose we replace all instantiations of the template. Templates are not for substantive content in a small number of articles. I am sure EBB is a solid editor and means well, but it is simply not the case that templates cannot be replaced manually with good cause. It is a weak use case for a template to begin with, and using it to simply fork static content is simply improper, if only for the problem we have here. Here we have editors complain that the template content must meet the editorial format of all articles its used inline, which is in effect creating a burden whereas the template is supposed to reduce the burden of editing, thereby defeating its purpose. I have meant to replace it the first I saw it but I just did not for whatever reason, probably because I saw no need to edit it myself. But since you want to edit the content, you were rebuffed, and I did not even see the discussion because the content discussion for this page needed to be made elsewhere, I think it should be replaced. Int21h ( talk) 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Minor edit after the fact. -- EBB ( talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In the "criticism" section, this article talks about insufficient checks and balances. That's fine, but then it mentions Henry A. Kissinger's article, “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction." I was curious, so I looked up this article. It's a great article, but it has nothing to do with insufficient checks and balances. In fact, the guy really likes the ICC! I don't know why someone cited him, but it ought to be removed, because it's misrepresenting his views. 72.80.198.233 ( talk) 18:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
However, the summit did not endorse the proposal for a mass withdrawal from the ICC due to lack of support for the idea.[133] Despite these calls the ICC went ahead with calling for Ruto to attend his trial.[134] Not clear what it is trying to say (maybe it is me). -- Inayity ( talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
With this edit (and a few edits before as well), info on Kenia was added, that in my view i) was already partly presented elsewhere (selective prosecution), ii) was not written from a neutral point of view (check the adjectives etcetc), and iii) was not in line with the transcript of the World Radio Netherlands source… I have therefore removed it and suggest to discuss here -if something needs to be included- what it should be…. Please do not readd it, until there is consensus for inclusion… L.tak ( talk)
Firstly, its KENYA NOT Kenia! What the hell is 'Kenia'?!?!?! Get it right next time, son!! Secondly, what Wikipedia rules have I broken??? Stop being petty! Deleting our posts all the time. Looks to me like someone has a problem with the TRUTH!!!
I have quoted Ocampo verbatim! The interview is publicly available here for all to see >>>>>> Moreno Ocampo's interview with Radio Netherlands Worldwide(RNW)<ref>http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/ocampo-exclusive</ref>
It is a shocking revelation to us here in Kenya, after all the hope people put in ICC just to realize White folks had greedy plans to plant puppets in our government..... We are pissed beyond! So deal with it!!!
STOP DELETING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
>>> WATCH THE CLIP AND YOU'LL GET IT.....but if you are too lazy to, READ THIS & LOOKOUT FOR THE BOLD ---> “There were some DIPLOMATS asking me to DO SOMETHING more to PREVENT KENYATTA OR RUTO from running in the elections. And I said ‘it’s NOT my job’....." <ref>http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/ocampo-exclusive</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
>>>>> I have deleted the word SHOCKING..... Hurrah, here's a cookie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
>>>>>> You're right am pissed off! You piss us off when you delete legitimate posts here on Wikipedia. To us the real immaturity is a guy sitting behind his laptop waiting for me to upload text just for him to delete. Wikipedia isn't even interesting enuff for me to take this bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
MY ADVICE: Stop chasing (the few remaining) Wikipedians away. Gotta catch the Arsenal-ManU game now.... Listen, we've put references on the main article if you'd like to understand the Kenyan case more, I have to leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
PS: My team won!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I would propose removing the situation regarding the registered vessels from the "Detailed summary of investigations and prosecutions" and am fully aware that it was probably me who originally added it there. Given the sensitivity of this issue (there will almost certainly foul cries as citizens of Israel may justifiably be seen as the main "targets" of this referral), I would like to propose this here before the action. The reasoning behind my proposal is that there is a preliminiary examination but no investigation (in the formal sense) in the mentioned situation, not to speak of any prosecutions. Of course, if and when the Prosecutor opens an investigation, the situation should be included in that list immediately.
This proposal conincides with Ukraine accepting the Court's jurisdiction. The situation, however, is not fully comparable as for the Prosecutor to investigate in that situation a Pre-Trial Chamber must approve that move. This is not the case for the registered vessels situation where the Prosecutor may now open (sic!) an investigation on her own at any moment.
If there is no rejection of this proposal within the next week or so I would remove the registered vessels situation from the template.
By the way, with Ukraine now having accepted the jurisdiction it once agains turns out that it is becoming increasing difficult to keep all pages up to date. With the template which was removed about a year ago, this would have been much easier.
Happy Easter to whom it may concern. -- EBB ( talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the ICC claims jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes when a complaint is made by a party to the Treaty of Rome, even if the complaint is made against a state which is not a member (such as Israel). What is the legal basis for this? Brute force?
What would happen, for example, if Israel would assert that such an investigation and possible trial (presumably in absentia) has no legal basis that it recognizes and retaliated by passing internal legislation citing the illicit proceedings to be an conspiratorial attempt to abduct an Israeli citizen or citizens and name perhaps the chief prosecutor, judges and the head of government of any nation hosting the court (currently The Netherlands) for conspiracy to abduct an Israeli citizen? Other non-party nations might follow suit, perhaps eventually leading to a situation where no head of government would feel secure traveling out of one’s own nation. Is this situation tenable?
If the ICC court another incremental step into the introduction of a “One world government” that certain nations would be justified in resisting, militarily if necessary? I wouldn’t see a problem if both parties in such a dispute were parties to the court. However, if one is not then, again, what is the legal basis of the court? HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I am aware of this discussion, but I haven't found the time to catch up on everyone's positions and concerns, but I promise I will in time. I would like to remind everyone of the Wikipedia talk page guidelines (specifically to not use the talk page as a forum). That being said, I'm just leaving this message to inform everyone that I have completely restructured the "Jurisdiction" section of the article. I feel that it needed to be more clear and expansive. I recognize that this may have disrupted some editing regarding this discussion and I am happy to engage with everyone to address their concerns. Regards, – Zntrip 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
This sentence needs work, the original was better structured: The Office of the Prosecutor has opened nine official investigations and is also conducting an additional nine preliminary examinations. Thus far, 28 individuals have been indicted in the ICC, including Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo. Because all the of the official investigations thus far have been in Africa and because all of the indicted persons have been African, the Office of the Prosecutor has been criticized for allegedly disproportionately focusing on Africa and not beginning investigations outside of the continent. -- Inayity ( talk) 08:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Reading through the sections on temporal and territorial jurisdiction, a question formed in my mind. The sections refer to "states [becoming] a party to the statute" [Rome Statute]. When do they become a party? Upon signing, or upon approval, acceptance, accession, succession, or ratification? Every one is acknowledged as a different level of becoming a party to the statute on the UN webpage.
See https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en for more details.
Believe the article will be more useful if we are able to address this basic question. Bilhartz ( talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! My name is Mirelis Gonzalez and I'm a senior at Syracuse University studying International Relations. As part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy initiative, I plan on including a portion on NGO involvement with the ICC to this article. I've also been editing the entry on the United States and the International Criminal Court, and it'd be great if I could have the support of the Wikipedia community, especially those that have been working with both of the mentioned entries. I look forward to editing and working alongside everyone!