[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: So what if, by British laws, Blair hasn't done anything wrong and the British government decides there is nothing to charge him with. Can the the ICC still bring him up on charges? There is no justice in that. Who makes all the "International" criminal laws any way? Are these law makers elected in popular elections? What governing body sets the Judges and Prosecutors? If your convicted, where do you serve your time? Time to way in TL and sort this out. Of course, actually to me, it makes no difference, since we didn't sign on to the ICC.

I did:

As I said, it is quite arguable and ambiguous whether the documents authorized the use of force or not. In that situation, the BURDEN OF PROOF trumps: as Greece will carry the burden of proving beyond doubt that Blair violated the UN Charter, and as it is ARGUABLE one way or the other, Blair will not get convicted/found liable by the Court. If you run across someone who'll address the burden of proof issue and disagree with me, I'd love see the reasoning. On this particular point, I will stake a bit of my professional reputation.

Add this bit from Article 22 and I feel secure in my analysis:

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

Brits say no problem, can ICC bring charges?
Yes, but only if the Britts did not properly investigate or did not investigate impartially:

Article 17 Issues of admissibility 1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court. 2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable: (a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5; (b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; (c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice

From what I saw on the floor of the House of Lords, Tony Blair was not only investigated "impartially," some of his follows seemed out for blood. With all of England hating him anyway, it's hard to say the government didn't investigate the issue properly. Unless you discredit the British criminal/investigatory system altogether,I'd say the court will not second-guess it. I could be wrong -- but I don't think I am.

Penalties?

PART 7. PENALTIES Article 77 Applicable penalties 1. Subject to article 110, the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute: (a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; or (b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person. 2. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order: (a) A fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; (b) A forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.

Where is time served?

Article 103 Role of States in enforcement of sentences of imprisonment 1. (a) A sentence of imprisonment shall be served in a State designated by the Court from a list of States which have indicated to the Court their willingness to accept sentenced persons. (b) At the time of declaring its willingness to accept sentenced persons, a State may attach conditions to its acceptance as agreed by the Court and in accordance with this Part. (c) A State designated in a particular case shall promptly inform the Court whether it accepts the Court's designation.

Read the full text if you like.

[ 07-30-2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]