International Criminal Court: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "lawfare<ref>Wikipedia has an article about Lawfare.<ref>" to "lawfare<ref>Wikipedia has an article about Lawfare.</ref>") |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| publisher = International Criminal Court}}</ref> It became operational when 120 nations had signed that Treaty. | | publisher = International Criminal Court}}</ref> It became operational when 120 nations had signed that Treaty. | ||
A number of major nations, including the [[United States of America]] and | A number of major nations, including the [[United States of America]] and China, have not signed the treaty or accept the ICC's jurisdiction. Reasons vary, ranging from a concern that it infringes on national sovereignty,<ref name=Goldsmith-FLR-1997>{{citation | ||
| author = Goldsmith, Jack Landman & Curtis Bradley | | author = Goldsmith, Jack Landman & Curtis Bradley | ||
| title = The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation | | title = The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation | ||
| volume = 66 | journal = Fordham Law Review | page = 319 | year = 1997 | | volume = 66 | journal = Fordham Law Review | page = 319 | year = 1997 | ||
| url = http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00001185/01/66_Fordham_L._Rev._319_(1997-1998).pdf | | url = http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00001185/01/66_Fordham_L._Rev._319_(1997-1998).pdf | ||
}}</ref> to that it will be used in an unfair politicized manner under the rubric of "[[lawfare]]", essentially a new type of [[asymmetric warfare]].<ref name=CFR>{{citation | }}</ref> to that it will be used in an unfair politicized manner under the rubric of "[[lawfare<ref>Wikipedia has an [[Wikipedia:Lawfare|article about Lawfare]].</ref>]]", essentially a new type of [[asymmetric warfare]].<ref name=CFR>{{citation | ||
| title = Lawfare, the Latest in Asymmetries | | title = Lawfare, the Latest in Asymmetries | ||
| date = 18 March 2003 | | date = 18 March 2003 | ||
| publisher = | | publisher = Council on Foreign Relations | ||
| url = http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5772 | | url = http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5772 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
As opposed to the [[International Court of Justice]], which hears disputes among countries, the ICC is focused on individuals accused of crimes against humanity, such as [[genocide]]; genocide has been the most frequent charge, although the doctrines of ''[[hostis humani generis]]'' or [[just war theory]] presumably could establish other crimes such as [[piracy]] and [[slavery]]. It is the successor to ''ad hoc'' judicial processes such as the [[International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg)]], the [[International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia]], the [[Nuremberg Military Tribunals]], the [[International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda]] and the [[International Military Tribunal (Tokyo)]]. | As opposed to the [[International Court of Justice]], which hears disputes among countries, the ICC is focused on individuals accused of crimes against humanity, such as [[genocide]]; genocide has been the most frequent charge, although the doctrines of ''[[hostis humani generis]]'' or [[just war theory]] presumably could establish other crimes such as [[piracy]] and [[slavery]]. It is the successor to ''ad hoc'' judicial processes such as the [[International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg)]], the [[International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia]], the [[Nuremberg Military Tribunals]], the [[International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda]] and the [[International Military Tribunal (Tokyo)]]. | ||
==Lawfare== | ==Lawfare== | ||
[[Lawfare]], in the context discussed by [[Jack Goldsmith]], is the use of [[international humanitarian law]] as a means of exerting the will of other nations on states with which they have ideological grievances. Goldsmith specifically calls the Court "self-defeating".<ref name=ICC-Goldsmith>{{citation | Lawfare<ref>Wikipedia has an [[Wikipedia:Lawfare|article about Lawfare]].<ref>, in the context discussed by [[Jack Goldsmith]], is the use of [[international humanitarian law]] as a means of exerting the will of other nations on states with which they have ideological grievances. Goldsmith specifically calls the Court "self-defeating".<ref name=ICC-Goldsmith>{{citation | ||
| title = The Self-Defeating International Criminal Court | | title = The Self-Defeating International Criminal Court | ||
| author = Jack Goldsmith | | author = Jack Goldsmith | ||
| url = http://www.uspolicy.be/Article.asp?ID={B1DF5062-A4E7-4D62-A76D-BEC01CF3211B} | | url = http://www.uspolicy.be/Article.asp?ID={B1DF5062-A4E7-4D62-A76D-BEC01CF3211B} | ||
| journal = University of Chicago Law Review | year = 2003}}</ref> Other aspects of international law are being used among nations, such as maritime law by China; this would not be under ICC jurisdiction.<ref>{{citation | | journal = University of Chicago Law Review | year = 2003}}</ref> Other aspects of international law are being used among nations, such as maritime law by China; this would not be under ICC jurisdiction.<ref>{{citation | ||
| title = China wages maritime "lawfare" | | title = China wages maritime "lawfare<ref>Wikipedia has an [[Wikipedia:Lawfare|article about Lawfare]].</ref>" | ||
| date = 11 March 2009 | | date = 11 March 2009 | ||
| journal = Foreign Policy | | journal = Foreign Policy | ||
| author = [[James Kraska]] and [[Brian Wilson]] | | author = [[James Kraska]] and [[Brian Wilson]] | ||
| url = http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/china_wages_maritime_lawfare}}</ref> | | url = http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/china_wages_maritime_lawfare<ref>Wikipedia has an [[Wikipedia:Lawfare|article about Lawfare]].</ref>}}</ref> | ||
There is some sentiment, however, that a body like the ICC will be more just in applying | There is some sentiment, however, that a body like the ICC will be more just in applying universal jurisdiction than individual nations who have tried to extradite or prosecute individuals who neither performed the act in areas under their national jurisdictions, or against their citizens. This is a more extensive interpretation than actions taken against foreign defendants who are variously either resident in the country taking the action (e.g., [[Filartiga v. Pena-Irala]]) or by citizens of the national actor. | ||
==Operations== | ==Operations== | ||
Latest revision as of 16:50, 7 June 2024
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an international organization created by the Rome Statute[1], but not a part of the United Nations although it cooperates with the UN.[2] It became operational when 120 nations had signed that Treaty.
A number of major nations, including the United States of America and China, have not signed the treaty or accept the ICC's jurisdiction. Reasons vary, ranging from a concern that it infringes on national sovereignty,[3] to that it will be used in an unfair politicized manner under the rubric of "[[lawfare[4]]]", essentially a new type of asymmetric warfare.[5]
Ancestry
As opposed to the International Court of Justice, which hears disputes among countries, the ICC is focused on individuals accused of crimes against humanity, such as genocide; genocide has been the most frequent charge, although the doctrines of hostis humani generis or just war theory presumably could establish other crimes such as piracy and slavery. It is the successor to ad hoc judicial processes such as the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Military Tribunal (Tokyo).
Lawfare
LawfareCite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag Other aspects of international law are being used among nations, such as maritime law by China; this would not be under ICC jurisdiction.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag"
| date = 11 March 2009 | journal = Foreign Policy | author = James Kraska and Brian Wilson | url = http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/china_wages_maritime_lawfare[6]}}</ref>
There is some sentiment, however, that a body like the ICC will be more just in applying universal jurisdiction than individual nations who have tried to extradite or prosecute individuals who neither performed the act in areas under their national jurisdictions, or against their citizens. This is a more extensive interpretation than actions taken against foreign defendants who are variously either resident in the country taking the action (e.g., Filartiga v. Pena-Irala) or by citizens of the national actor.
Operations
It is located at The Hague in the Netherlands, and funded primarily by its States Parties, as well as receives voluntary contributions from governments, international organizations, individuals, corporations and other entities.
References
- ↑ Rome Statute, International Criminal Court
- ↑ Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, International Criminal Court
- ↑ Goldsmith, Jack Landman & Curtis Bradley (1997), "The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation", Fordham Law Review 66: 319
- ↑ Wikipedia has an article about Lawfare.
- ↑ Lawfare, the Latest in Asymmetries, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2003
- ↑ Wikipedia has an article about Lawfare.