Yeah, Right......Try again.
The protest at U.S. exemption of individuals from criminal jurisdiction has been widely reported. The continued refusal of the United States to subject its own actions, especially the use of force against others, to judgment by the ICJ has been treated as a non- event. The president who turned America's back on judgment under international law was Ronald Reagan. His action resulted from fear (especially after prominent condemnation by Senators Barry Goldwater and Daniel Patrick Moynihan) of an adverse Court ruling in Nicaragua's case against the U.S. Reagan withdrew American acceptance of mandatory jurisdiction that had been filed forty years earlier by President Truman, with unanimous support of the Senate. Republican representative Jim Leach of Iowa led opposition to President Reagan's action terminating consent to World Court jurisdiction. He said of the action of the president (put into office by his party) that "it lowers the United States to the level of international scofflaw…it symbolizes a retreat from support for the concept of international adjudication that dates back to the last century." (Hearing, House Subcomm. International Affairs Oct 30, 1985) Others agreed. Paul Simon, then senator from Illinois, in an Op-Ed in the New York Times, decried the self-inflicted wound to U S prestige. When the U.S. vetoed an otherwise unanimous Security Council call for U S compliance with the Court's ruling in the Nicaragua case, the L A Times editor's headline was "World Scofflaw" The Gorbachev regime reversed in 1998 a history of eight decades of Soviet boycott of the Court and its predecessor. The U.S. Congress acted in response. In the 1990 Foreign Relations Authorization Act there was included a call for "efforts to broaden, where appropriate the compulsory jurisdiction and enhance the effectiveness of the ICJ." There was no action taken to implement this by President G.W.H. Bush, father of the incumbent. Fifteen years earlier as U S ambassador to the U N, the earlier President Bush had officially declared in response to a U.N. survey: The United States firmly believes that a strong and active international Court is a central and indispensable element of an international legal order. Prevention of the use or threat of force to settle international disputes is essential to the maintenance of international security and is most effectively assured by the development of an international legal order and resort to a strong and respected Court. In July 1993, a congressionally created U.S. Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations gave attention to the ICJ. It endorsed compulsory jurisdiction and recommended "to set a standard of leadership, the U.S. consider reaccepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. No response from President Clinton. During a wide-ranging policy overview conducted in 1994 by the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senator Christopher Dodd raised "the issue of the World Court" and said: "I think it is sad indeed … that we have withdrawn ourselves from the jurisdiction of that Court. The Cold War is over. I think it important that we re-engage." Secretary of State Warren Christopher responded that he agreed. By his silence, President Clinton did not. That was about the last time public reference was made to U.S. refusal to accept compulsory jurisdiction. The individuals and groups previously concerned seemed to have abandoned the cause. Some had given up. Others were engaged in a new issue that had begun to seem urgent by the nineties of the 20th Century: They were distracted by the impact of the savage cruelties during the hostilities that marked the years following the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. They were appalled by the scale of the genocide in Rwanda. Demands to "do something" impacted national leaders and they turned to the Security Council of the United Nations for action. The Council responded by improvising temporary international criminal courts to try and punish criminal violation of human rights in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. This was not a new idea. Most well known early proposal was the call to "Hang the Kaiser," that was heard after the First World War. Intermittently discussed thereafter among publicists and in law reviews, the notion of criminal trials for war guilt was put into effect in temporary tribunals that sat in Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II. To achieve such a result on a temporary basis seemed enough and nothing was done at the San Francisco conference that created the United Nations and the ICJ. In the last years of the twentieth century, the idea of an international criminal court became something of a cause. There came into being an "NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court" that attracted many who had been supporters of a return to the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction. The fruit of their efforts, joined by statesmen from several nations, was the Rome Conference of 1998 and the Treaty for a criminal tribunal of general international jurisdiction. This was the Court-to-be that was spurned by the Bush Administration. Not only that! So abhorrent was the thought of such a Court that Secretary Powell's State Department launched an international drive directed against vulnerable nations, seeking to have them abstain from joining and withdraw if they had; moreover some were persuaded to agree even to refuse extradition of alleged criminals. That the Bush administration thus has not only refused to submit to the criminal tribunal, but is actively seeking to torpedo it, has been considered reprehensible. This has sorely disappointed those who believe that crimes against humanity should not go unpunished. But President Bush cannot be fairly faulted for failing to return the United States to support an International legal system, such as was advocated by his father; one presided over, as the first president Bush urged, by a court to adjudge among the nations. He was not asked to do so and, not having been reminded On Apr 10, 2:40 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > You are forgetting something. The US never approved the ICJ in the > first place. In fact they refused to because of all the questions > raised that nobody could answer and still to this day have not answered. > > You might answer some of them. > > What is the code of laws that would be applied > Are you assumed guilty or innocent until proven otherwise > Who is certified as qualified to appear before the court > What right of appeal is there > Who will enforce any judgment by the court > How will judges be assigned to the cases to ensure that for example > an Israeli would not appear before a Palestinian judge or a > Chechen would not appear before a Russian judge or a Greek > before a Turk or vice versa > How will judges be appointed to the court in the first place > How will standing be determined to ensure that frivolous cases will > not be used to punish oppostion > In the case of the code of laws how can they be modified or revoked > Who will control the courts (forget the UN - we should never allow that > misbegotten organization to affect us at all, in fact we should > leave it) > > With these questions never having been answered and from the current > cases that this misbegotten court has tried and the way it has bee used > I for one think we should stay as far away from it as possible. And as > for the UN and that Human Rights crew they have, that should be enought > to get us out of the UN ASAP. It may be good for something but not a > whole lot. Look at the tsunami, two weeks after the tsunami the UN > shows up and decides to hold meetings with limos and parades to decide > what to do about the tsunami. In the meantime the US and the Aussies > and other countries had already sent ships that were actually doing > something. Then the UN decided they should take over control of the > whole mission. That was to joke I hope. Then we have those wonderful > groups that were working in Africa with the rapes and using the people > who needed help for their personal brothel. Also the ones who stood > there and watched the shooting of the crowd when they were supposed to > be there to get the two sides to sit down and talk. > > Long story but the upshot is that we should never repeat NEVER turn our > sovereignty over to any of these international organizations. They are > not to be trusted under any circumstances. > > > > Mark wrote: > > Response one: > > > Someone has to. > > > TWO: > > > They have the right to reach internationally on affairs they think > > affect or affected their interests in any way. > > > Gee, the US does just that as well. > > > THREE: > > > Should they ??? No. He has not made a single overt or covert move > > outside his borders that did not include an invitation of another (the > > affected) sitting sovereign government. That would be the US method > > and why the Spanish feel they have a right to act. > > FOUR: > > > If I'm not mistaken the US does not consider six men (Che had > > resigned from > > ALL Cuban service) talking politics and basicallly starving in the > > outback > > to be a reasonable threat... in this case there is no point to be made by > > you. As far as some of the other excursions made by Cuba during their > > "foreign travels", those soldiers were on loan to the Soviet bloc.... > > Is the > > US responsible for UN actions ?? > > > And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference does it > > make... > > the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, the US > > under > > Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the ICJ > > jurisdiction > > AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) verdict > > was rendered for war crimes............ > > > How soon the right points fingers forgetting they paved the way. > > > I see NO waffling in any of my very direct answers to direct and ON > > TOPIC (unlike yours) questions. > > > And up until and including that reply we were discussing heads of > > state and he mistakenly threw Che into the mix... I reminded him Che > > was not part of the Cuban Gov. when in Bolivia etc. > > > You then started on ENTITIES, not people pulling a Gaar and trying > > your best to make it suit some imagined topic that was simply NOT > > being discussed regardless of your interpretation. > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Mark reread the thread.... Dick asked you if effect does the Us have > > the right to "try" a foreign leader and then issue an arrest > > warrant... To this question you did an Obama and refused to answer > > directly... And that is the core topic of this thread... In one > > post, in making a point, you added a false fact that > > > >>> the first to openly ignore the UN > > > which you altered after the fact to in effect > > > >>> the first to openly ignore a ICJ judgment > > > Now I show even that anti-American dig is plainly false what do you > > do??? You claim if effect any comment about your false your dig is > > NOT part of this thread, so any disabusing of your "off-topic" > > statement is now out of bounds... Egads man, do you have no > > shame??? If the "the US was first to do it" was off topic, why did > > you YOU TYPE IT? If however it was part of a valid reply that was on > > topic, then questioning your claimed facts IS ON TOPIC... > > > You are seeking to have your insult and deny my claim of you claiming > > false facts all at the same time... Was you insult on topic??? If > > yes, admit your claim was false, if not apologize for being off > > topic... Very simple really. After all, we are here for honest, > > open and civil debate here are we not??? > > > On Apr 10, 3:30 pm, Mark <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > again gaar, you sidestep the original issue. > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: > > > > > ouch!!! > > > > > On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > Further examples as I twist the knife into your false > > claim's back... > > > > > Openly ignoring ICJ judgements is relatively common starting > > from > > > > > 1951.... > > > > > > Non-Compliance with the International Court of Justice > > > > > > Andrew Srulevitch > > > > > Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations > > > > > July 8, 2004 > > > > > > Tomorrow the International Court of Justice will issue its > > non-binding > > > > > advisory opinion on Israel’s Security Fence. How might > > Israel react > > > > > to an adverse decision? Detonate a nuclear device? Attack the > > > > > enemy? Send 350,000 civilians into the disputed territory? > > > > > > So responded France, Iceland and Morocco, respectively, to ICJ > > > > > decisions against them. Ignoring the ICJ ruling would not > > be original > > > > > either. The United States, Albania, Argentina, > > Guinea-Bissau, Iran, > > > > > Malaysia, Nigeria, Romania, South Africa and Thailand have all > > > > > followed that path. > > > > > > If Israel does not accept the ICJ’s conclusions, > > Palestinians and > > > > > their supporters will argue that the Security Council should > > enact > > > > > sanctions against Israel, as it did against apartheid South > > Africa. > > > > > Lawyers for the Palestinians made this argument explicitly > > in their > > > > > oral presentation to the court: > > > > > > This is a classic case in the light of the opinion issued by > > the Court > > > > > in the Namibia case. As a result of the serious breaches of > > > > > international law by the State of Israel, other states are > > obliged to > > > > > co-operate with one another and with the United Nations and > > other > > > > > competent international organizations, in order to put a > > stop to these > > > > > violations; not to recognize the unlawful situations arising > > from > > > > > these violations; not to assist in the maintenance of these > > > > > situations. If Israel persists in its refusal to apply the > > above- > > > > > mentioned rules of international law and does not accept the > > > > > consequences of its responsibility, the General Assembly is > > entitled > > > > > to expect the Security Council to take the necessary > > coercive measures > > > > > which, in the case of violations of mandatory legal rules, > > should not > > > > > be amenable to the use of a veto by any member of the Council. > > > > > > Their argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Just as the > > general > > > > > comparison between Israel and South Africa is specious, so > > is the > > > > > specific linkage of the Namibia and Security Fence cases. > > > > > > The history of the ICJ not only contradicts the Palestinian > > argument, > > > > > it leads to the opposite conclusion: states have not been > > subject to > > > > > Security Council sanctions for non-compliance. The ICJ’s > > judges have > > > > > issued decisions in various formats: in contentious cases > > between two > > > > > states, as advisory opinions for other UN agencies, and as an > > > > > arbitration panel. Though the circumstances of each case > > differ from > > > > > Israel’s and from one another, all of the states cited above > > adopted > > > > > policies of non-compliance with an ICJ ruling. > > > > > > Four cases – France, Iceland, Morocco and South > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
