We need some rule, be it moral or legal, to distinguish between legitimate intervention and brazen abuse of power.

Why good does such a distinction do me, especially consider that countries that commit brazen abuses of power are rarely ones to be restrained by international niceties — Russia was going to flex its muscle against Georgia irrespective of anything that goes on in Brussels or New York.

The problem is one of politics, not law:

It is the law that suggests we should take Chinese input into consideration at all — it empowers them to make a political issue of it when it’s a straightforward moral one.

Actually, that is a tricky issue. Under a straightforward interpretation of the ius ad bellum, Kosovo was illegal.

I’m really not one for fiat justitia ruat caelum — by a straightforward application of a higher law it was absolutely the right thing to do.

And for good reason, too: if we grant that NATO was permitted to bomb the Serbs even though they didn’t have a Security Council mandate,

I object to the use language that starts from the position that a sovereign needs to ask “permission” before resorting to ultima ratio.

how is that different from the Russians bombing Georgia in aid of South Ossetia?

In a legal sense, it’s not. I take this as manifest evidence that a legal framework particularly ill-suited to judging these affairs.

If the US, or any other country, can get a Security Council mandate to go after Bashir, they’re welcome to it.

Hey, so long as the sky doesn’t fall on the Netherlands, right?

Oren__: Sorry to be a broken record (I promise I won’t bring it up again) but why can’t Bush or Obama deal with Bashir just like Clinton took care of Milosevic? I think the Sudanese Army and the Janjaweed would run the **** out of Darfur once the AC130s started in on them.

Actually, that is a tricky issue. Under a straightforward interpretation of the ius ad bellum, Kosovo was illegal. And for good reason, too: if we grant that NATO was permitted to bomb the Serbs even though they didn’t have a Security Council mandate, how is that different from the Russians bombing Georgia in aid of South Ossetia? Or country X bombing its neighbour Y in aid of the (possibly invented) minority Z? We need some rule, be it moral or legal, to distinguish between legitimate intervention and brazen abuse of power. If the US, or any other country, can get a Security Council mandate to go after Bashir, they’re welcome to it. Such a thing wouldn’t be a crime of agression under the Statute of Rome, no matter how they end up defining agression, and all would rejoice. The problem is one of politics, not law: China doesn’t want to upset Sudan, because Sudan have too much oil.

Well, to a point. He was a democrat, and that’s always good. Still, he was working with a Republican Congress, far, far away from the 67 votes he needed in order to ratify anything, even if he’d want to. Look how great Kyoto went… Clinton alone was not enough to make up for that.

I think the GOP Congress could have swallowed Rome if it contained an explicit provision exempting the US from the “show trial” and “not genuine” provisions. Maybe I’m wrong (and we will never know, of course).

“Horses for courses” as one of my old teachers used to say — is the ICC better than what we’ve got now for dealing with, say, Omar al-Bashr?

Sorry to be a broken record (I promise I won’t bring it up again) but why can’t Bush or Obama deal with Bashir just like Clinton took care of Milosevic? I think the Sudanese Army and the Janjaweed would run the **** out of Darfur once the AC130s started in on them.

Plus, this has the extra benefit of inflicting a bunch of uneducated violent savages on the population of the country that spawned them!

It’s not that we’re not capable, it’s just that we’re not willing to spend vast amounts of money on military readiness when there’s no viable threat against “the homeland”, and no reason to prefer military over diplomatic efforts in most of the rest of the world.

(1) The existence of a viable threat and the preparedness of the military are not independent variables. Strength dissuades would-be-threats to reconsider investing in military technology, weakness invites it.

(2) I agree entirely that we ought to prefer diplomacy over military efforts, but is has to remain as a credible last resort. The world was right to condemn Bush for using force too readily against Saddam but I think Europe has been too reluctant to use force against Bashir. Too little can often be just as bad as too much.

I guess ultimately I am a results-oriented kind of guy. If the diplomats can show real progress on the ground in Darfur that’s fantastic. If not, it becomes time to rattle the saber.

Well, to a point. He was a democrat, and that’s always good. Still, he was working with a Republican Congress, far, far away from the 67 votes he needed in order to ratify anything, even if he’d want to. Look how great Kyoto went… Clinton alone was not enough to make up for that.

I think the GOP Congress could have swallowed Rome if it contained an explicit provision exempting the US from the “show trial” and “not genuine” provisions. Maybe I’m wrong (and we will never know, of course).

“Horses for courses” as one of my old teachers used to say — is the ICC better than what we’ve got now for dealing with, say, Omar al-Bashr?

sardonic_sob: Given your history, I suggest that you give it another few centuries before you start talking about how Europe has decided it ain’t gonna study war no more even when nobody else is looking.

Who said anything about “studying war”? Not only are there two nuclear powers among the EU Member states, but there is also hardly a country in Europe that doesn’t make significant amounts of money selling weapons to whoever will buy them. On top of that, EU countries are quite willing and able to contribute when their interests are at stake (like the Dutch navy off the coast of Somalia, and hunting for drug smugglers around the Dutch Antilles).

It’s not that we’re not capable, it’s just that we’re not willing to spend vast amounts of money on military readiness when there’s no viable threat against “the homeland”, and no reason to prefer military over diplomatic efforts in most of the rest of the world. The US should be grateful for the help we sent to Afghanistan and Iraq, because even that was more a favour to the US than a decision taken based on direct interests alone.

Lee C Walker: What the actual humans are saying, is this: just because you’ve done a lot of good for the world, that does not give you a free pass from any investigation or punishment if you ever do cross the line and perform harm.

That’s a false distinction: We both agree that there should be accountability under the law – where we disagree is to whom members of the US government should be accountable. And I don’t think either of us are going to change our minds.

I think that the proper accountability of the US government is to the American people, via our constitution, laws and political system.

My understanding is that you think that US officials should be, at least in some circumstances, accountable to “the world” through the mechanism of the ICC. I think that’s the wrong answer, both pragmatically (not just because the US will never agree, which hurts the ICC more than it hurts the US, but also because it gives the real threats to human rights and peace another avenue to delay or divert necessary “hard power” interventions) but also morally (because the past examples of other transnational bodies, such as the UNHRC, make me believe that the “world” is not yet sufficiently morally mature to be a better forum for judgment than the US legal system.)

“Horses for courses” as one of my old teachers used to say – is the ICC better than what we’ve got now for dealing with, say, Omar al-Bashr? Absolutely! Is it better than a US Article III court for dealing with the actions of US officials, even actions taken on the world stage? Absolutely not.

I suspect you’ll disagree – and that’s fine. It’s a complicated problem of law, philosophy, morality and trust, and reasonable people can disagree. I come down firmly on the side of American exceptionalism – I trust the American people to do the right thing much more than I trust the “the world,” where the UK is nicely balanced out by Russia, Denmark by Venezuela, and Belgium by Tajikistan. For me, American exceptionalism is not a case of “my country, right or wrong,” it’s a case of “my country, not always right, but more likely to be right than anyone else.”

Oren__: Was this true back in the late 90’s when Clinton was negotiating? I thought Europe loved him.

Well, to a point. He was a democrat, and that’s always good. Still, he was working with a Republican Congress, far, far away from the 67 votes he needed in order to ratify anything, even if he’d want to. Look how great Kyoto went… Clinton alone was not enough to make up for that.

Martinned: No, because we decided to choose law over violence. Post-Cold War, US “military intervention” (?) has very little to do with it.

“Post Cold War” was only possible in the first place because of the actions the US took from 1942 through 1994 or so that eliminated totalitarianism from Western Europe and enforced a certain level of representative democracy across all governments there post-war. And of course, US led alliances both bound the European polity to a common purpose, and eliminated the need for each country in Europe to provide for its own defense, thus eliminating the risk of renewed militarism on the continent and allowing the Europeans to evolve new norms that didn’t depend on force or the threat of force for enforcement. And the US did that throughout the critical genesis from a coal and steel trade agreement through a common market to a trans-national (somewhat) government. There’s a very good argument to be made that Western Europe was able to transform itself into what it is now only because it was wrapped safely in the cocoon of US militarism.

I’m glad it’s working out for you over there, but you could at least tip your hat to the Marshal who made it possible as he rides out of town and off into the sunset. . .

Dennis N:
I have no difficulty with that.If we consent to it, then we are to be bound to it, if we behave honourably.Perhaps the best example is a trade agreement.We all agree to allow a mutually selected body to arbitrate our trade disputes.Even at that, how can that body enforce its will against our resistance?In the end, it’s still Might Makes Right.What kind of law is that?

In the end, it’s the only kind there is. It’s been that way since long before men walked, it will be that way until the last star goes out. All we can do is the best we can do.

The Treaty of Versailles nailed down those evil, warlike Germans in the tightest bounds of law and regulation that could possibly be imagined. It lasted just exactly as long as the victors had the power to enforce it. (And in fact its strictness was one of the reasons that the Germans labored so mightily to get out of it.) Absent mind control, you cannot bind anyone to laws which they do not wish to obey. The more you tighten your grasp, the more that slips through your fingers. Or, as a wise if fictional person once said:

Laws not make people nice.

I highly doubt that that is true. The US are widely perceived as undermining every bit of international law they’re allowed near, going back to the United Nations and the ICCPR. (Why are there two treaties?) If the ICC has any hope of succeeding, the US must be forced to take it or leave it, just like everybody else. Imho, even the accomodations that have already been made to the US go too far. Why are they even allowed at the table?

Was this true back in the late 90′s when Clinton was negotiating? I thought Europe loved him.

You are quite right that to give the US an exemption now (i.e. after W) would be looked upon poorly. That’s why I commented earlier that the ship has probably sailed on that. Like I said, if I were judging, I would prefer to suck it up and let the US in under those terms (and take whatever hit to my legitimacy that entails) than have the US outside pissing on it.

Just remember, (for better or worse) you aren’t going to get a more conciliatory US President than Obama — he’s already far too European for most of the populace as it stands.

Now think of the USA as the hero cop, and the world as that city. Just because the USA has performed uncountable beneficial acts, does not mean the world is going to give it free passes. The world has developed an international law, and the USA should abide by it. Otherwise it’s just a criminal with a badge.

But the cop has colleagues that can take over, meanwhile there is only one US.

If there was only one policeman, it would most certainly behoove us to ignore his transgressions rather than to have no policeman at all.

Martinned:
No, because we decided to choose law over violence. Post-Cold War, US “military intervention” (?) has very little to do with it.

There are a lot of people who live in places far from your own enlightened realm, but still completely European, who would disagree with you firmly. There’d be even more than there are now, but they’re buried in trenches all over the Balkans.

Given your history, I suggest that you give it another few centuries before you start talking about how Europe has decided it ain’t gonna study war no more even when nobody else is looking.

Dennis N:
If they are combatants, we have the right to kill them in combat.If they are not combatants, and in their own country, we have no particular rights over them at all.The whole basis for defining combatants vs non combatants, is to allow greater protection for the non combatants.

That’s where I was going with the “fig leaf” part of my post, which I may not have been clear enough about.

My position on the matter of our Middle Eastern adventure is not really in either of the main two camps and doesn’t fit neatly in a box. However, on this aspect it’s pretty simple. We are at war with Afghanistan and Iraq under the traditional laws of war. (Yes, we are.) We have allied ourselves with a particular faction in both countries which might, given time, become a legitimate and sovereign national government and whose combatants operate as regular soldiers under the traditional laws of war. Anyone who takes up arms against US or allied soldiers in either of those countries is either an enemy combatant from an unallied faction, or is a criminal. Both countries are in a state of martial law. Under martial law attacks against soldiers by criminals may be punished by summary execution. If we catch them, we don’t do that, but we would be perfectly within our rights to do so. If they are enemy combatants as the traditional laws of war define the term, then if captured they should be treated as POW. Our not doing this is, IMO, a lesser immorality than criminal attacks upon soldiers, but it is an immorality none the less, repugnant to the traditional laws of war, and frankly the two issues should not be linked. I detest the entire idea of “extraordinary rendition” and disappearing people, even if they are clumsily disappeared as in the case of Guantanamo Bay and other extraterritorial detention centers.

So as you can see, I think there’s enough mud to go around for everybody.

james: The law only posits that any discussion thread will eventually invoke Hitler/Nazi references; not any comment on the winning/losing of the argument.

Actually, the reference was to the most important Corrolary of Godwin’s Law, which does state that whoever invokes Hitler loses. In this case, though, the topic of genocide came up naturally enough, and from both genocide and the ICC it is a logical enough step to Nuremberg and the Nazis. So I agree with the earlier commenters who argued that Godwin’s Law does not apply here.

Jim Ancona:
I invoke Godwin’s Law, Lee C Walker has lost the argument.

The law only posits that any discussion thread will eventually invoke Hitler/Nazi references; not any comment on the winning/losing of the argument.

SF Alpha Geek: Europe no longer engages — in fact, can no longer imagine engaging in — and endless cycle of intercine wars, because of US military intervention.

No, because we decided to choose law over violence. Post-Cold War, US “military intervention” (?) has very little to do with it.

SF Alpha Geek: Has the US been perfect in its international behavior? Certainly not, but neither should we allow others to pretend that, on balance, the US role has been highly beneficial for the entire world

Nobody is saying the US hasn’t been highly beneficial. The only people who say that are actual terrorists.

What the actual humans are saying, is this: just because you’ve done a lot of good for the world, that does not give you a free pass from any investigation or punishment if you ever do cross the line and perform harm.

An analogy? Think of a police man. A hero cop. He has saved thousands of lives. Single-handedly taken down the mafia. The most celebrated cop in the history of the city. But what if it were found that, on the side, this hero cop sold 40 tonnes of cocaine per year? Does the hero cop get a free pass because he has performed highly beneficial acts for the City? No. The hero cop is subject to the laws of the city, just like any other citizen. His good behaviour in benefiting the city by saving lives and taking out the mafia does not excuse his drug selling or allow him to sit in judgment of himself as his own tribunal.

Now think of the USA as the hero cop, and the world as that city. Just because the USA has performed uncountable beneficial acts, does not mean the world is going to give it free passes. The world has developed an international law, and the USA should abide by it. Otherwise it’s just a criminal with a badge.

Oren__: Indeed. The proper venue is the Congress of the United States — the body with manifest and undisputed authority to regulate American military activities. Then they should exempt the US and be done with it already. Whatever institutional damage that does, it pales in comparison with not having the US on board at all.

Agreed, and I apologize if some of my rhetoric was over the top – put it down to coming from a less scholarly (and less lawyerly) background than most of the commenters here, and to a huge dose of unabashed American exceptionalism.

At the end of the day, the core of the arguments here seem to come down to a fundamental philosophical difference about the relationship of the US to the rest of the world. Those who support the ICC as is, I think, tend to believe in the efficacy of international covenants in preserving peace and human rights, and either believe a) that the risk to US sovereignity is worth the good that universal acceptance of the ICC will bring, or (I suspect more commonly) b) that limits on US exceptionalism when it comes to the exercise of hard power are an additional benefit of the treaty.

I, obviously, don’t accept that POV, and it comes down to something you wrote earlier about the difference between domestic and international law – law is effective because of “the existence of burly men with guns waiting to do violence . . . against those that violate it.” Absent those “burly men”, law represents little more than a set of moral platitudes about how we should act. And, I would further argue, for most of history, international law was a combination of those moral platitudes, plus a code of conduct not dissimilar to those in the Kentucky hill country a hundred years ago – a mutual understanding of what people were willing to fight over.

For better or for worse, in the international arena, the US has taken on the role of those burly men with guns -and I also believe that for all the villification heaped upon us by what I think of as the internationalist crowd, most of the progress in setting up international and transnational institutions that protect both the peace and human rights has been possible because of our role as “the world’s policeman.”

Europe no longer engages – in fact, can no longer imagine engaging in – and endless cycle of intercine wars, because of US military intervention. The UN was made possible by US military intervention. The genocide in Rwanda happened, not because of the lack of international covenants and organizations for the preservation of peace, but because no-one could convince the US it was worth the cost in blood and treasure to intervene there after what happened in Somalia.

Has the US been perfect in its international behavior? Certainly not, but neither should we allow others to pretend that, on balance, the US role has not been highly beneficial for the entire world. I believe that places us in an entirely different category in relation to international bodies than other countries or individuals that the Rome Statute contemplates. Several commenters spoke about accountability, and I understand their desire to have all countries and persons equally accountable to an international body – I understand it, but I don’t agree. As I noted in what was my first deliberately provocative comment, the US, by doing the distasteful work of exercising hard power, has allowed other countries and organizations the luxury to pretend that they are somehow morally superior to us because they don’t do so – much like the pacifist who finds violence morally reprehensible, but still expects the police to protect him.

And that’s why I ultimately oppose giving the ICC jurisdiction over US actions – not from some Thracymacusian impulse because we’re the big dogs, but because when it comes to doing the right thing, I have considerably more faith in the US people than in the international community.

And, BTW, I stand by my tother admittedly deliberately provocative, comment regarding military force against the ICC – like you, I hope it doesn’t come to that (and I don’t think it ever would – it would take a chain of monumental diplomatic screw-ups on the part of a whole bunch of countries and international organizations to get to that point) for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that I hope that someday we will be in a position where US hard power won’t be necessary to preserve peace and enforce human rights – and prosecuting US officials in the ICC for actions taken in their official capacity would set that process back by decades, precisely because it would be, not simply a diplomatic issue, but an act of war by an international body against the United States. The fallout from that could never be anything but very, very bad for everybody – but especially for the people who hope that someday international agreements will be an effective source of enforceable law.

Oren__: Then they should exempt the US and be done with it already. Whatever institutional damage that does, it pales in comparison with not having the US on board at all.

I highly doubt that that is true. The US are widely perceived as undermining every bit of international law they’re allowed near, going back to the United Nations and the ICCPR. (Why are there two treaties?) If the ICC has any hope of succeeding, the US must be forced to take it or leave it, just like everybody else. Imho, even the accomodations that have already been made to the US go too far. Why are they even allowed at the table?

Look, I understand your desire to stop U.S. military interventionism abroad. I agree with you on this. However, the ICC is not the proper approach to doing this.

Indeed. The proper venue is the Congress of the United States — the body with manifest and undisputed authority to regulate American military activities.

Purporting that the ICC will be politicised and out to get the USA is a misrepresentation.

Then they should exempt the US and be done with it already. Whatever institutional damage that does, it pales in comparison with not having the US on board at all.

Dennis N: Exactly what “law of nations” existed in the early 19C?

Quite a lot, actually. See Wilhelm Grewe, Epochs of International Law, Rev Edn (2000) if you are interested.

Oren_: I’m not sticking my head in the sand and saying international law doesn’t exist. My position is that it exists but cannot bind the American People against their will. If Congress consent to a certain restriction then it is not against their will. 

I have no difficulty with that. If we consent to it, then we are to be bound to it, if we behave honourably. Perhaps the best example is a trade agreement. We all agree to allow a mutually selected body to arbitrate our trade disputes. Even at that, how can that body enforce its will against our resistance? In the end, it’s still Might Makes Right. What kind of law is that?

Anonsters: Re-read the clause in the Constitution. It gives Congress power “[t]o define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations,” not “to define the Law of Nations.” Congress’ power, deriving from that clause, is predicated on the existence of “the Law of Nations.”

Exactly what “law of nations” existed in the early 19C? At best it was a series of loose understandings based on how Civilized Nations were expected to behave. The power of that clause, was to allow the US to prosecute pirates and later, slave traders. The various civilized nations punished enemies of all mankind, as they defined them then, according to their own laws.

Lee C Walker: You are the one who called them the ‘Turd World’, made fun of their cultural attire, etc. What exactly was the context of that comment, if it wasn’t racist?And you call me the race baiter? Wow. Just wow.

Piss off, race baiter, boy.

Dennis N: Martinned: Say what???? 

Who else is following the Geneva Convention today?To shortcut what I believe may be a needless argument, I’ll invent some dialogue.Q: What about the UK (Substitute the country of your choice.)DN: How many POWS do they have?

I’m going to back out of this part of the argument and take my raps as an idiot, for having gone off half cocked. I can name a bunch of instances where the CG would have applied since WW-II. Anyway, my main point, here, was that the GC only moderates the behavior of nations that are inclined to be moderated, and that’s kinds tangential to this whole affray.

Oren_: You can’t seriously be claiming the US soldiers fighting the Germans in Normandy are properly subject to the laws of Vichy France, right? Or that US special forces in the USSR had to obey Soviet Law? 

Oren, you are quite right on this point.

Wheaton, International Law, 6th ed (1929) Vol 1 at 234:
“The grant of a free passage [for the troops of the visiting country into the host country] implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops [of the visiting country] during their passage, and permits the foreign general to use that discipline and to inflict those punishments which the government of his army may require.”

See also: Pitt Cobbett, Leading Cases in International Law, 5th ed (1931) Vol 1 at 260-274

For the case authorities see The Schooner Exchange v M’Faddon [1812] USSC 15; (1812) 11 US 1116 at 139, 140; Coleman v Tennessee [1878] USSC 40; (1878) 97 US 509 (24 Law Ed 1118) (at 462).

Blue: Mr. Walker, the opponents of the ICC would need to create a persona like you to show how virulantly it would oppose our interests did you not, helpfully, exist.

I am quite in favour of US interests. In fact, highly so. I consider it rightfully the leader of the world, due to its actions in the past two hundred years.

I wish that hard earned reputation as a true freedom-loving country–not freedom to do whatever you want, but a a respect for the protection of freedoms and a cooperative spirit in the suppression of those who would oppress a people–to be maintained. It will be all the more easily maintained if the US plays ball with the global community, and binds itself as an equal participant in the emerging legal order. Economically, militarily, and socially superior it may be, but equally accountable it must also remain.

Bob from Ohio:
Do you consider the US and the Third Reich equal in evil?Yes or no.

Of course, I do not consider the US and the Third Reich equal. Definitely not. However, I am just as firm in my belief that the USA should not be allowed to take whatever military action it sees fit. That is a dangerous proposition. When the Third Reich committed unspeakable acts of aggression, its leaders were taken to task. If the USA – or any other country – ever carries out such aggression, its leaders should also be taken to task, and the ICC is infinitely fairer than the Victor’s Justice that the Treaty of Versailles would have meted out in the proposed (yet ultimately non-existent) tribunal that was to judge Wilhelm II of Hohzenzollern, and the International Military Tribunal at actually meted out its justice at Nuremberg.

As a side note, I sincerely apologise for the rude ad hominem statements I have made in the context of this conversation, but I stand by the points I have made. I just get frustrated when people misrepresent and cast aspersions. Purporting that the ICC will be politicised and out to get the USA is a misrepresentation. Purporting that its need to pay due regard to proper procedural justice, et cetera, is also a misrepresentation.

All courts are politicised to some degree. However, there is no evidence to show that the ICC is out to get the USA, and no evidence that it would be biased against the USA. In fact, the track record of modern international tribunals – the ICTY, ICTR, Special Court for Sierra Leone – have shown impeccable judicial fairness and a high quality of decision-making. One only needs to read through the Lubanga case to see the truly high-minded due regard applied even to a barbaric warlord accused of severe war crimes involving the use of children under 15 years of age. If the ICC is that fair to a person like Lubanga, there seems to be no basis on which to automatically assume it won’t be at least as fair to any American who came under its purview

The USA was the leader of the P-5 group in PrepCom and the other preparatory stages, whose primary and overriding goal was to ensure that the Security Council – and the Security Council only – would have the sole power to refer matters to the ICC. The implications of this are clear: all P-5 states have vetoes, so if any case perceived to be possibly detrimental to their interests came up, the USA (or Russia, China, et cetera) could simply veto it.

When the USA did not get its way, it decided once and for all that it would not ratify, yet remained in the PrepCom process to attempt further influence. And this paid off in several ways:

1. Art 98(2) – I am surprised nobody has mentioned this – allows the USA to make bilateral agreements with other countries, which prohibit them from surrendering US nationals to the court:

98(2): The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.

2. Art 16 allows the Security Council to defer an investigation in the ICC for up to twelve months. If a nation or the ICC prosecutor has decided to launch an investigation, the SC can invoke 16 and prohibit any action. This deferral is also renewable ad infinitum, effectively allowing the Security Council – so long as nine members including the P-5 agree – to perpetually bar the ICC from conducting an investigation.

16:No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.

These are huge concessions made to states like Russia, China, and the USA. Because all three have considerable clout, allowing them the leverage to make many Art 98(2) bilateral agreements, and because if they work together they can all but assure the nine member majority required to keep detrimental investigations of their countries’ affairs out of the ICC.

Similar huge concessions will be granted when the act and crime of aggression under the Rome Statute is instituted by amendment and the jurisdiction becomes activated. Under either the Green Light or the Red Light option, the Security Council will have considerable power to prevent an investigation for the crime of aggression. With the Green Light model, a simple USA (or any other P-5 member) veto will definitively halt any ICC investigation for aggression. Under the Red Light model, it would require the nine member including P-5 majority. This concession was gained mostly through the participation of China and Russia in the Special Working Group, open to all interested states not just ICC members (the USA however chose not to participate).

These are massive concessions to powerful nations, concessions that would be seen as improper in most modern, western municipal courts (due to concerns about judicial independence); however, we still have the Americans talking about how unfair the court is, and how it is attacking US sovereignty. Unfortunately, neither China nor Russia are willing to participate as ICC members, which is a further shame.

Do you think a person is sometimes known by the company he keeps? Well, there were seven countries who voted against the Rome Statute: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, China, Israel, and the USA. That’s a story in itself.

Dennis N:
You’ve revealed that youb are nothing but a race baiting scum.Begone Troll.

You are the one who called them the ‘Turd World’, made fun of their cultural attire, etc. What exactly was the context of that comment, if it wasn’t racist?

And you call me the race baiter? Wow. Just wow.