Posted on 04/03/2002 12:16:44 PM PST by freespeech1
UN Poised To Ratify International Criminal Court
By Christine Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 02, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - The United Nations is poised to ratify the International Criminal Court, which could subject United States citizens to international trials -- even if the U.S. Senate does not ratify the ICC treaty.
"This is a treaty that binds third parties," said Gary T. Dempsey of the Cato Institute. Historically, when two countries sign a treaty, it binds only the countries that sign it, he noted.
International proponents of the treaty expect it to gain the final four votes it needs for U.N. ratification by April 11. That would bring the court into force on July 1.
Former President Bill Clinton signed the ICC treaty on December 31, 2000, in the last days of his administration, ostensibly to ensure that the U.S. would be a full participant in meetings setting forth ICC rules. The U.S. Senate is not expected to ratify the treaty, however.
Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been a particularly vocal opponent.
Other opponents of the ICC, such as Dempsey, are urging President Bush to "unsign" the treaty, which would be a symbolic gesture. The administration has said it is considering that option. The bottom line is that "the US is not and will not be part of the ICC," Pierre Prosper, the State Department's ambassador at large for war crimes issues, said in New York last week.
While the International Court of Justice (known as the World Court) has jurisdiction over nations, the ICC will be vested with the power to try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of "aggression."
Countries that ratify the treaty would be exempt from prosecution for seven years. But countries that do not ratify it will be subject to prosecution right away.
"It would be U.S. policymakers who would be brought before the court," said Dempsey. "So if the other the countries sign onto it, there would be an obligation for them to either arrest that individual and try them in their own country or to extradite them to The Hague, where the main court would be.
"It would create a huge diplomatic nightmare if that happened," said Dempsey. "I can just imagine an American, a former secretary of state, traveling in France [and being] arrested."
Defining aggression
The ICC also raises other concerns for American interests. According to Dempsey, the U.N. drafters could define the crime of aggression in a way that could outlaw pre-emptive strikes and blockades such as the one the U.S. imposed against Cuba during the missile crisis.
"In an age when you've got terrorists trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction," said Dempsey, "that could be a suicide pact."
Also, because the ICC treaty is subject to amendment in seven years, other U.N. countries that originally wanted to include a broader range of crimes, such as "environmental crimes" and drug trafficking, might be able to achieve that. Critics call the amendment possibilities a Pandora's Box.
The Feminist Majority Foundation, which recently took over Ms. magazine, is among the domestic supporters of the ICC.
Eleanor Smeal, founder and president of the group, told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in March that her group wants the ICC because "what we're worried about are the rights of women.
"The Rome [ICC] treaty recognizes sexual and gender violence as crimes, which is a first for international law," said Smeal. "We think it's extremely important. It's essential if we are going to have rules of law, not man."
Amnesty International has also lobbied on behalf of the ICC proposal. The international human rights group believes the court will have a deterrent effect, "persuading at least some of those tempted to commit atrocities to think again."
Victims and their families will benefit, too, Amnesty argues, because they will know that those who have committed atrocities will be brought to justice.
The ICC "must have strong powers and an unwavering commitment to fairness, and should be a model of independence, effectiveness and justice," says Amnesty.
So someone arrests the US Secretary of State, thus violating our diplomatic immunity. WHAT THE HELL DO THEY THINK WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH ALL 0F THE DIPLOMATS IN THE UN SITTING THERE IN NEW YORK????? Put them all under house arrest until our Secretary of State is returned; then we deport the diplomats and padlock the UN building.
What are they going to do then??
Clinton signed it this better not be an ooooops didn't "get to it" or Bush will be as bad as Clinton.
What would happen right now if there were another terror scare? The sheeple would demand foreign troops since ours are tied up. Hell they'd lick the boots of such soldiers.
This nation is crumbling.
- the ICC will be vested with the power to try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of "aggression."
Bush should "unsign" this so Clinton can be prosecuted right away.
They will try everyone for not proclaiming THEIR world religion Gaia crap.
I thought contracts were willing commitments because they were not inherently perfect as they are man made - save for inalienable sovereign rights. What gives the UN the right to grant itself the status of GOD???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
He will be "un-signing" it.
Only the Congress can ratify a treaty. Hence, Kyoto was signed by Gore, but not ratified by the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.