World Court to try first case

[Dreamer128]

The International Criminal Court in The Hague has decided to bring charges against the Democratic Republic of Congo's former rebel leader Thomas Lubanga. The court's judges have ruled that there is enough evidence to charge Mr Lubanga, who after the civil war entered politics. He is accused of kidnapping children as young as ten and forcing them to fight.

It will be the first case decided by the ICC. The court also intends to try the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is also compiling charges against suspected war criminals in Sudan's Darfur region.

(rnw.nl)

[ 01-30-2007, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[PurpleXVI]

Sadly, the World Court, the UN and other such international bodies have no more power than the world is willing to give them, meaning that they only try the criminals which the big powers dislike.

We'll never see American, British, Russian or Chinese war criminals in the World Court.

[robertthebard]

Yeah, the UN has plenty of power, if the price is right.

ex: UN decides to put economic sanctions against Iraq, except for those sanctions that might interfere with their cash flow. When do we see UN leaders responsible for things like the "Oil for Food" scandal in the World Court?

[PurpleXVI]

When do we see Rumsfeld, Cheney or American soldiers in the World Court? Don't demand just punishment for the people you hate if you're not willing to subject your criminals to the same thing.

And yes, falsifying evidence to lead a war that has caused thousands of deaths IS a crime. Selling chemical weapons to a dictator IS a crime. Torturing Iraqi prisoners IS a crime.

Don't complain about a lack of punishment for UN criminals until you're willing to send your own men to the World Court.

I'm not defending the UN, it's a bloated institution that does little but wag it's finger at whoever is the bad guy of the day, and it's humanitarian work hardly makes up for all the waste going on. But, you know, the US is the last country that gets to talk on these things. You're one of the countries hamstringing the UN by having a veto right, you're one of the countries that gives your own war criminals a hero's welcome or a minor slap on the wrist for what they've done.

Most countries have some skeletons in the closet, but I think that the US has had to buy an extra wardrobe just to store them all. So what I'm saying is that if there's any country that doesn't have a right to lambast the UN until it gets it's own crap in order, it's the US.

[Dreamer128]

The problem with the UN is that it is often made out to be something it is not. It is not a World Government, or even an attempt at creating one. Quite the opposite. Respect for national sovereignty is the foundation upon which it has been build. If we examine the UN-decision making process, we can conclude that it is not an effective tool for solving major international disputes. The Security Council boasts several members with veto’s, all of which tend to have opposite interests. We should also wonder how serious we should take the Security Council when half the countries that hold veto’s can hardly be considered to be fully democratic. The same goes for the Human Rights Council, which is partially made up of dictatorships. Now, I realize that this sounds rather negative, but I strongly feel that the UN has many good sides. A few of which are named above. It also provides a forum to discuss (and occasionally solve) disputes between nations.

[PurpleXVI]

Being able to talk together is hardly a new invention that the UN needs to be praised for.

The UN is useless as a problem-solving mechanic unless it wields some sort of power that forces people to respect it's decisions, especially when we're dealing with entities that have no moral or ethical obligations(Nations). The same goes for the world court, unless it has the power to drag in the criminals itself, only those dragged there by the stronger nations will ever be tried, and their criminals will go free.

However, it's impossible to ever call it a useful, democratic forum when some members have veto rights that put them above other members.

In my mind we should either scrap the UN and keep the humanitarian sections as entities operating on their own, or we should reform it with the power to, well, actually wield some sort of power.

[ 01-30-2007, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

[Dreamer128]

Well, the UN is a product of the 'modern' world. (as defined by Robert Cooper in The Breaking of Nations). The 21st Century has already given birth to several multinational organisations with a federal signature, such as the African Union. At the moment, there are plans to change ASEAN into an Asian counterpart of the European Union. Several South American states are also planning something similar. Such 'groups' wield far more power than the UN at any given time, because it is in the interest of all involved parties to cooperate with them. Given time, problems that now involve the global-community might be solved on a regional level (think of the African Union peace force in Darfur).

[ 01-30-2007, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[robertthebard]

I'm all for putting criminals in jail, and you'll never read me say anything else. As to war crimes, I really think the only crime we're guilty of, now that we are in Iraq, is having troops on the ground at all. This whole thing could have been over 2 years ago, if we'd just turned the whole place into a parking lot, as an example to all other little terrorist minded individuals. The whole idea behind war, as distasteful as it may be, is to kill enough people on the other side that they give up, or cease to exist. Which ever comes first. If you don't want to get eaten alive, don't tease the lions.
In my opinion, the World Court can drag whomever they please in front of them for a trial. What ever happens happens. I won't lose any sleep over it one way or the other.

[PurpleXVI]

Robert, are you forgetting those of your politicians and generals who sold Saddam the chemical weapons you came to hound him for? Are you forgetting how he was your friend when he was gassing Iranians instead of Kuwaitis? You may not have direct war criminals, but you have the men who raised a war criminal and chose to give him extra guns rather than stopping him, or at the very least not endorsing him.

I am, honestly, not even going to touch the comment about Iraq, because I'm sorry to tell you that your comprehension of the realities governing global politics and terrorist mentalities is sorely lacking. Read some books.

Dreamer: The African Union is a bit of a toothless lion. It's forces are badly equipped, undermanned and I seem to recall that half of the continent doesn't want to cooperate with them and when they ARE present they don't seem to make much of a difference. It's a nice idea, but the execution needs work. There are others like that, the CIS, for example, which isn't worth a damn, possibly because half of the involved countries are rotten to the core from corruption.

Hopefully none of them are taking lessons from the EU(Though their uselessness seems to suggest it.). If the EU were to work properly it would need some serious changes, first we would have to remove Britain, and then we'd need a lot of internal punitive measures and sanctions for countries like Britain and France who violate the rules and treaties involved. Not to mention cleaning up things like the farming subsidies that cause more harm than good. Oh, yeah, and the whole thing seems a bit pointless unless we do more to make our legislation on various fields more similar, yet half of the EU has standards miles under Scandinavia when it comes to things like food quality and the EU Constitution was a stillborn initiative.

The EU suffers severely from trying to be two things at once. It's trying to be a US-like union with things like the Constitution, but at the same time it's trying to just be a loose trading-union that lets everyone be their own way. It needs to make up it's mind and go for one of the other, rather than this half-way waffling which is full of flaws. Everyone wants the benefits, but no one wants to give up anything for them or for the good of the whole.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: When do we see Rumsfeld, Cheney or American soldiers in the World Court? Don't demand just punishment for the people you hate if you're not willing to subject your criminals to the same thing. And yes, falsifying evidence to lead a war that has caused thousands of deaths IS a crime. Selling chemical weapons to a dictator IS a crime.

You mean like 1980's France and Germany?

Torturing Iraqi prisoners IS a crime.

define torture, is making a dog bark at a prisoner, or "disrespecting" a "religious" book (which was a totally falsified claim) torture? how about all those who blatantly ignore the Geneva conventions. The problem with the convention is that it's only the "good guys" that even pretend to follow it, nobody else cares, and they usually don't get called on it.

Don't complain about a lack of punishment for UN criminals until you're willing to send your own men to the World Court. I'm not defending the UN, it's a bloated institution that does little but wag it's finger at whoever is the bad guy of the day,

Usually Israel

and it's humanitarian work hardly makes up for all the waste going on.

And don't forget the sex scandals, prostitution, graft and coercion that occur during each and every peacekeeping operation that is led by the UN

But, you know, the US is the last country that gets to talk on these things. You're one of the countries hamstringing the UN by having a veto right, you're one of the countries that gives your own war criminals a hero's welcome or a minor slap on the wrist for what they've done. Most countries have some skeletons in the closet, but I think that the US has had to buy an extra wardrobe just to store them all. So what I'm saying is that if there's any country that doesn't have a right to lambast the UN until it gets it's own crap in order, it's the US.

you're right, but without the US, the UN would be completely toothless, just like the League of Nations, the only reason it has ANY teeth is the US and NATO.