The European Union wants Sudanese war suspects to be tried by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. This runs contrary to the United States' wish to set up a special tribunal to try cases from Sudan's Darfur province. Earlier this week, the United Nations published a report saying both the Sudanese government and the rebels were guilty of widespread human rights abuses in Darfur.

The EU believes it is important those responsible are brought to justice as quickly as possible, preferring to give the court in The Hague jurisdiction. However, the United States does not recognise the court because of fears it could prosecute American personnel. A final decision on how to try crimes committed in Darfur rests with the UN Security Council.

(rnw.nl)

The speed does make sense. And it's not as if trying the Sudanese under the Court will suddenly mean that American soliders would come under its jurisdiction.

The only reason the US has to fear the ICC being used here is if it turns out to be a rip-roaring success. But even then, that would only be a problem if the ICC had advocates at home, which (AFAIK) it really doesn't. Let this one by guys...

[ 02-04-2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Only thing is Sham they can't let it go by, if they do then it would be hypocritical to continue to oppose the court.

Some might say it is currently hypocritical to oppose the court JD - what is your answer to them?

(Note the use of the famous FOX byline of "Some might say ....". How do they get away with using it so much?)

<font color = lightgreen>Some might say that FOX is trying to obtain some sort of sound-byte-like marketing tool. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

I would say that it is none of our damn business whether the EU tries Sudanese criminals tomorrow or ten years from now. Although I do not feel any need to submit to the ICC--why place ourselves under the power of folks who don't necessarily have our best interests at heart?--we don't commit war crimes; thus, we wouldn't have anything to fear. Our military is far too paranoid for its own good. </font>

It apparently didn't before, but now that so much has happened it is suddenly important to quickly move on matters? I'm sorry, but if the UN wants to worry about quickly responding to these sorts of things they should figure out how to get involved before huge numbers of people are killed, not go "well, I guess they were warcrimes, we should do something about that".

It apparently didn't before, but now that so much has happened it is suddenly important to quickly move on matters? I'm sorry, but if the UN wants to worry about quickly responding to these sorts of things they should figure out how to get involved before huge numbers of people are killed, not go "well, I guess they were warcrimes, we should do something about that". </font>[/QUOTE]Well, two points here.

Firstly, it's the EU and not the UN that is making the case about the ICC

Secondly, you can't really blame the UN for the lack of action - its the member states that get beatings for that. The UN can do no more than ask and cajole for troops - other countries simply weren't willing to send them.

[ 02-05-2005, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Military intervention is decided in the Security Council, and until they agree to take action, the UN wont go into Sudan. That's simply how it works.

A veto in the security council means a vote in the main council, which requires a 60% majority. The US snuck that past the soveits while they were protesting over the US not regonizing the PRC and allowing her into the security council.

Opinions are like anal sphinxsters everybody's got'em, and occasionaly they need to be wiped. ;)