International Court May Define Aggression as Crime

[Judi Lynn]

Source: New York Times

International Court May Define Aggression as Crime
By MARLISE SIMONS
Published: May 30, 2010

PARIS — More than 100 nations, contingents of human-rights groups and lawyers from around the globe, will begin a meeting on Monday in Kampala, Uganda, tackling issues that could fundamentally expand the power of international law.

The thorniest question on the agenda, one certain to dominate the conference, is a proposal to give the International Criminal Court in The Hague the power to prosecute the crime of aggression.

If approved, it could open the door to criminal accusations against powerful political and military leaders for attacks the court deems unlawful. Those could range from full-scale invasions to pre-emptive strikes.

The court, the world’s first permanent criminal court, already has a mandate to prosecute three groups of grave crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Adding aggression to this list “would be a game-changer in international diplomacy,” said Noah Weisbord, a member of the expert group that has drafted a definition of the crime for the meeting.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/world/31icc.html?ref=world

[Ter]

1. I can smell the New World Order conspiracies already...

This will give the One World Government crowd a lot to get bent out of shape about.

[pinboy3niner]

2. Good point

I wonder how realistic the prospect of their adopting this proposal is. There has to be a LOT of behind-the-scenes politics going on, with the U.S. in the thick of it (as the story indicates). This is a BFD.

[kas125]

3. Wait - isn't war of agression already the SUPREME war

crime because it encompasses all others??

[dipsydoodle]

4. It's already a crime in a number of countries

which is what limits where Blair's advisory team consider it safe for him to travel without risking arrest - approx. 50 or so countries at present.

[on point]

5. It is a crime in the USA (despite the fact Bush committed this crime in Iraq)

As a signatory to the Nuremberg Treaty and the UN Charter, it is classed as a war crime and is already illegal in the USA. We just don't have the guts to apply it to our own leaders - hence the need for the International Court.

Their rules say the country in question is obligated to prosecute those of it's citizens that commit these crimes. If they are unable, or unwilling to (ie the USA and Bush admin war criminals), the IC can prosecute. All they are doing is adding to the list of already recognized war crimes that they can prosecute.

AND WE NEED IT, because so far we have FAILED to prosecute for the Bush Admin for
Crime of aggression
Crimes against Humanity (Torture)

and a few other ones.

Felix Frankfurter is I am sure horrified at what has become of the USA and commitment to the rule of law.

[Selatius]

7. I was under the impression the US never fully ratified the Rome Treaty recognizing the ICC.

The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States if it never ratified the treaty. Clinton signed the statute but did not submit it to the Senate for ratification at the time. Bush "unsigned" the statute and signaled he would never sign it. Obama has said nothing about the Rome Treaty or signaled any intention to sign the bill and submit it to the Senate for a vote of consent.

[provis99]

8. the US will never sign it.

There's good reason: just about every President and Vice-President since FDR is guilty of international war crimes, as are large segments of the Congress critters who support Presidential war crimes.

[Solly Mack]

6. k/r

[G_j]

9. Justice Robert L. Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals

Statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945
on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
<snip>

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which
their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the
war, but that they started it. And we must not allow
ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,
for our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."
<snip>

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945

READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT HERE:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[G_j]

10. kick