While it’s understandable why many African nations distrust the court–pretty much all of the prosecutions are of Africans according to what I heard on the BBC–it’s not necessarily because the court is biased. For one, Africa is kind of a mess. For another thing, African nations have very little ability to resist international pressure to turn over people, as they are generally weak, poor, and indebted to everyone else… So the ICC goes where it can reasonably expect to get people to the dock.
It depends. The US (rarely) extradites it’s own citizens on criminal charges. But that’s about exterm diction treaties on criminal law between countries.
The ICC handles a completely different type of crimes, and the US does.not necesarIy go through the bureaucracy needed (see the extraordinary renditions). They basically don’t need to ask in many cases.
As others have pointed out, it’s practical for them, if not necessarily ethical.
-Timex: what part of “international law” you don’t understand? You elect your legislators for crimes committed in your country. That’s fine. An American committing a crime in another country (or under international jurisdiction) is another thing. Your legislators might think (for example) bombing suspects in Pakistan is cool. That does not make it legal. Not even by American law, since it doesn’t belong to.its reach.
Timex
3603
-Timex: what part of “international law” you don’t understand. You elect your legislators for crimes committed in your country. That’s fine. An American committing a crime in another country (or under international jurisdiction) is another thing. Your legislators might think (for example) bombing suspects in Pakistan is cool. That does not make it legal. Not even by American law, since it doesn’t belong to.its reach.
Is hard to even know where to start with this, since there is so much wrong with it.
First, an American committing a crime in another country doesn’t fall under the umbrella of “international law”. It falls under the jurisdiction of that country’s laws. If i go to another county, ia voluntarily agreeing to be bound by their laws.
But something like the ICC attempts to bind me with laws that are not american laws, even if i never leave american soil.
Sorry chief, I’m not interested in being bound by non american laws while in America. I can vote for legislators in America, and thus have a say in what laws exist. I have no such influence on the " international law " you imagine exists. While dictators have dramatically more influence. Ya, i think I’ll pass.
Instead, i would suggest what we do, which is extradition treaties with other countries that actually have legal systems that we agree with.
If you were arguing straight, you’d seeming be making the argument that you would excluding all countries which recognize the ICC from extradition treaties. But it’s just another bad-faith argument.
Exactly, if America was signatory, they could influence the ICC. Yet they choose to ignore it and then claim unfairness. A body you don’t belong to is obviously not going to see things your ways many times…
And Timex, what about American soldiers in foreign soil? What laws should they be judied by? American or the hosting country? Soldier in Rota (American base in Spain) are notorious for evading Spanish law and then avoiding extradition once in the US.
Going back to my original example. Should the pilots dropping bombs in Pakistan be judged by Pakistani courts? Because that’s what you are saying…
Timex
3606
Simply “influencing” the ICC is not good enough, since as an American citizen i am far better off being bound only by laws that the government which i elected has created through our legislative process.
I gain absolutely nothing from participating in the ICC.
In terms of military personnel being held accountable by Pakistani courts, if they were caught there I’m sure they would be.
But you seem to think that it benefits us somehow to have our soldiers bound by non american law. It clearly does not.
Timex
3608
You don’t seem to know what the word imperialist means.
That depends how you define empire.
And I agree, it does not benefit the US to have soldiers bound by non US law. Thats obvious and in fact our original point.
It’s about whether it benefits the international community.
Of course the US might choose to disengage, but then don’t be surprised when people abroad tend to dislike the country’s attitude. It will be fine while you remain the standing superpower. But shall you need the international community’s support you might not get the reply you expect. Your arguments are indeed pragmatic, but they won’t gain the US any friends.
Assange and Snowden say hi.
ShivaX
3610
Why would we give up rights to an organization that’s statistically going to be strongly influenced by dictatorships and the like?
I mean, we could join and then leave when Iran tries to arrest the President or something, but I suspect that would result in more bitching.
Timex
3611
The purpose of my government is to do things that benefit Americans, not you. That’s the job of YOUR government.
That’s why we are two separate, sovereign nations.
ShivaX - Which countries used extraordinary rendition?
Timex
3613
If i go to Britain, then I’m more than willing to abide by British law while on British soil. Seems pretty simple.
No, do business with British people, especially if they’re in Britain.
The American government is taking your side on this one, remember? The Ireland case with Microsoft’s servers? And the catastrophic consequences for American business should they succeed? Yea, that one.
Timex
3615
I think you are going to have to take a few steps back and try to explain what your point is. You have totally lost me.
You have a very strange vision of the world outside your borders. An outstanding number of countries are democracies:
Any true international organization is bound to be statisticalky strongly influenced by democracy, nor dictatorships, unless democracies like the US refuse to engage. Then yes, it will happen, but whose fault is that?
Thankfully that’s an isolated case and most democracies do engage despite what the US does.
No, the purpose of my government is to represent me, not to benefit me. Those are two extremely different things. Beside, I bel I’ve a government has duties within the international community the same way a citizen has duties within a government.
For example, illegal immigrants where killed in our borders by a military branch recently. I don’t care if it’s legal within my countries laws, or if the action did protect and benefit me or my country (the protecting my jobs fallacy). I think those responsibe should be brought to justice, and if my government refuses, I wish the ICC or something similar could be used instead.
I believe governments and corporations should be bound by ethical behavior, not Darwinistic survival. You don’t seem to think so, and I don’t think I can convince you, so I’m disengaging here…
Timex
3618
That’s a nonsensical position though.
If your government is failing to act in a manner that you believe to be correct, and you live in a democratic society, then why wouldn’t you simply change your government?
Ceding power to a non democratically elected international body, who you have infinitely less influence over, makes no sense at all.
I believe that the reality is that you actually want to use the icc to exert pressure over the us, since you don’t get to vote for our government. But as an American, giving you power over me serves no useful purpose.
This doesn’t preclude ethical behavior. But the american governments ethics are determined by those of Americans.
You are insane. Or paranoid. Don’t atribute intentions to people, please.
I believe my country should be subservient to an international body, because I think the welfare of other people is as important as my welfare, and therefore I believe to certain extent international responsibility and commitment is necessary, in equal grounds, because I might be wrong and other people right… Although I’m an atheist, I think it’s because the Catholic culture. And I think that’s why you’ll find many Europeans have the same outlook.
If it is weird to you somebody can consider a strangers wellbeing as important as his own, I suggest we will never agree in anything.
Just a point of clarity: the US government is there to benefit the US, and one of the ways it (ostensibly) does that is by representing them - these are not exclusive things.
As for Spain (iirc, that’s where you’re from):
