quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
Almost forgot to mention.
The concept of the International Criminal Court remains alive and well. It has been much hindered by the US decision not to ratify the court but not stopped. 46 countries have so far fully ratified the Rome statute of the ICC - the court needs 60 ratifications.
As soon as the magic 60 ratifications occur, the UN will declare it a permanenant and irrevocable body which all nations will have to obey and will be subject to - regardless of whether they accept it or not (just like the war crimes tribunals).
It may take another 5-10 years without the US, but it will happen and US citizens (just like anyone else) will have to answer to any charges levelled against them by the court...
But since the UN is an organization without "teeth" how realistic is it to believe it will work even if the US joins the effort?
Sadam Hussein continues to flout the UN's authority. If he isn't brought to trial before a military court how can anyone possible justify bringing someone before any international court. Do you only prosecute those who are easy to find? Those who won't cause an incident? A US businessman traveling abroad who has violated an international enviromental law not endorsed by the US could be taken to trial, while Saddam Hussein continues to create and stockpile biological weapons? Is that justice?
These little wrinkles really have to be worked out before there is ever any hope of this court working, whether or not 60 nations sign on.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]