Saturday, February 10, 2018

ICC Good News And Bad News

Originally Published April 26, 2012; Last Updated  February 10, 2018; Last Republished February 10, 2018:

There is good news and bad news out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague. The good news is that it finally completed a single trial, of a single defendant, of a single nation—the bad news is that it finally completed a single trial, of a single defendant, of a single nation.

Let us test the hypothesis that the ICC docket size and national cross-section is positively correlated with global stability and reduced conflict.

In the meantime let every nation model their criminal systems after the ICC's model1—internationally accountable and acceptable2; minimal docket size; incarcerations in humane and healthy; no death penalty; no life sentence; absence of retaliatory focus; defendant well represented; etc.


UPDATED 02/10/2018 FPJ, ‘Whitewashing’ Genocide in Myanmar and Reuters, Massacre in Myanmar and CBCRadio, Reuters Exposes a Rohingya Massacre — But The Reporters Who Uncovered It Are Still Behind Bars

UPDATED 05/07/2012 ThomsonReuters, Jury still out on international war crimes system

ACJ, Charles Taylor conviction sends warning to tyrants


1. Hopefully, at some fraction of the ICC's current per defendant expenditures—as the ICC docket size increases its average costs per defendant will likely decline?

2. Unfortunately our congress has not ratified the Treaty of Rome—no doubt because we're "exceptional".

From the organization ICCNow:

"Since Nuremberg, the United States had historically supported international mechanisms to enhance accountability. United States’ President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute on December 31 December 2000, the last day that it was open for signature. Shortly after the Bush Administration entered office and just before the 1 July 2002 entry into force of the Rome Statute, US President George W. Bush “nullified” the Clinton signature on 6 May 2002, alleging that the United States would no longer be involved in the ICC process and that it did not consider itself as having any legal obligations under the treaty. The legality of such a “nullification” is unclear and the subject of debate by international legal scholars."

Fortunately, the Obama Administration has reversed the prior administration's silliness nullification, mooting any existing signatory ambiguity (refer to pdf, The International Criminal Court (ICC): Jurisdiction, Extradition, and U.S. Policy), now all that remains is for our Congress to ratify the treaty.

No comments:

Post a Comment