|
|
Vertaal:
              Zal de Internationale Wet Bush bereiken?
Dinsdag, 23 September, 2008 Door Peter Dyer | Q: Wat Radovan Karadzic, vroegere Franse Eerste Minister Dominique de Villepin, en George W. doen Bush heeft in gemeenschappelijk? A: Elk leeft onder de langzaam het groeien schaduw van een lichaam van internationaal strafrecht. Deze wet evolueert naar het uiteindelijke doel om zelfs de krachtigste leiders persoonlijk voor misdaden verantwoordelijk te houden toegewijd door de Staat. Het wordt vertoond in internationale overeenkomsten en statuten zoals de Overeenkomsten van Genève, jurisprudentie, twee ad hoc rechtbanken van oorlogsmisdaden (Joegoslavië en Rwanda), en een permanent Internationaal Misdadig Hof. Radovan Karadzic, vroegere Bosnische Servische Voorzitter, is gearresteerd en gewacht nu op proef in Den Haag vóór de Internationale Misdadige Rechtbank voor vroeger Joegoslavië (I.C.T.Y.) op lasten van volkerenmoord en misdaden tegen het mensdom. Dominique de Villepin is één van 33 Franse militaire en politieke leiders die onlangs in een rapport beschuldigd zijn dat door de Rwandese overheid van het bewapenen van en het adviseren van Hutu leiders in de volkerenmoord en misdaden wordt vrijgegeven tegen het mensdom van 1994. George W. Bush in Maart 2003 gaf opdracht de „tot Schok en Awe van de Verrichting“ (hoewel officieel gesynchroniseerde „Verrichting: Iraakse Vrijheid“) - unprovoked invasie en beroep van Irak dat - de wereld met een duidelijk op het eerste gezicht geval van agressie voorstelt. De agressie, in de woorden van het oordeel dat bij de eerste Proef van Nuremberg wordt uitgesproken, is de „opperste internationale misdaad“ omdat het al andere verwoesting en inhumanity van oorlog loslaat. Voor deze reden, en omdat President Bush van de krachtigste staat van de wereld hoofd is, duidelijk schaduw van de wet is momenteel minder onheilspellend aan hem dan aan Karadzic of misschien aan DE Villepin. Maar er is geen statuut van beperkingen voor om het even welk van deze misdaden. De verandering van dingen in tijd, vaak onvoorspelbaar. En de internationale gemeenschap heeft regelmatig naar dit moeilijke doel voor decennia gewerkt. Nuremberg Precedent Although the effort to hold leaders personally responsible for crimes of state goes back to the late 19th century, the first significant watershed was the 1946 judgment of the first Nuremberg trial. A panel of judges from the U.S., U.K., France and the Soviet Union held German leaders personally responsible and punished them for crimes of state, including aggression. The roots of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals are largely in Nuremberg as are those of the International Criminal Court, although neither ad hoc tribunal charter included aggression. One of the most significant achievements of the Yugoslavia Tribunal was the first ever indictment of an acting head of state, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, for crimes committed while still in office. According to the I.C.T.Y. Web site, “the question is no longer whether leaders should be held accountable, but rather how can they be called to account.” A major problem with the two courts was that they were each temporary responses to a specific set of separate circumstances which had considerable legal overlap. The ad hoc approach was clearly limited by issues of logistics, expenses and repetition, many of which could have been more effectively addressed by a permanent court. The achievements of the two tribunals as well as their limitations gave new impetus to the decades-old effort to establish a permanent International Criminal Court. On July 17, 1998, the great majority of countries of the world voted in Rome, 120 to 7 with 21 abstentions, to establish the International Criminal Court. With the signature and ratification of 60 states the International Criminal Court came into being on July 1, 2002. Six years later, as of last June 1, 106 countries have ratified the Rome Statute. Written into the Statute is a provision for member states to meet seven years after the entry into force (2009) to consider amendments. Because the Statute is the result of decades of evolution and five weeks of intense negotiations between 148 countries, it is full of compromises. Even so, it is remarkable. Never before has the world community united to create an institution invested with legal authority to write, adjudicate and enforce international criminal law. And, despite compromises, it is remarkable for the degree to which so many were able to agree on some basics. Most important among these is a set of “core crimes” over which the Court has jurisdiction. These are: 1) genocide, 2) crimes against humanity, 3) war crimes and 4) aggression (the waging of aggressive war). Conflict over Definition Unfortunately, the Rome conference was unable to agree on a definition of aggression. Unwilling to leave out “the supreme international crime” containing within itself the “accumulated evil of the whole,” the conference compromised, including aggression among the ”core crimes” but leaving it undefined in anticipation of a future amendment defining the crime and setting out conditions for jurisdiction. Unfortunately, a major obstacle to the I.C.C., enforcement and otherwise, has been the United States. The U.S. was one of seven countries which voted against the Statute — part of a list which included Iraq, Libya, Israel, Qatar and Yemen. Despite the vote, President Clinton signed the Statute on Dec. 31, 2000. Less than two years later President George W. Bush “unsigned it.” If major countries such as Russia, China, India and especially the U.S. ever do decide to join and throw their considerable weight behind the I.C.C. here are a few examples of what the organization may eventually be capable of: –”Treaty crimes” such as hijacking and narcotics trafficking, while not yet covered by the Statute, are slated to be discussed and possibly defined and amended into the Rome Statue as early as 2009. There would be an international institution with the legal power to apprehend, try and punish future Osama Bin Ladens without the catastrophic destruction and waste of war. –The genocide visited by Saddam Hussein upon the Iraqi Kurds (1984-1991) perhaps could have been stopped, or at least punished upon authorization by the Security Council. –There will be a venue for resolving murky situations such as the recent violence in Georgia, where a court of law could be the only place to finally decide if and when aggression and/or other crimes occurred and who was responsible. –Assuming that aggression is eventually defined and fully included in the Rome Statute, those who initiate wars of aggression, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq, will do so knowing there is at least the legal possibility of arrest, trial and prison. Ironically the United States led the way in establishing the precedent for this when the Allies at Nuremberg tried and punished Germans for aggression and other crimes. At the moment, the prospect of an American president sitting in the dock of the International Criminal Court seems remote. It should be remembered, however, that in 1973, nobody would have believed that 33 years later General Augusto Pinochet would die under house arrest in Chile, facing trial on charges of human rights abuses, including kidnapping and murder, committed during the dark days of Chile’s military government. A lot can happen in three decades. Leaders come and go. Power ebbs and flows. National and international perspectives and relationships change. Imagine the chilling effect the real prospect of arrest, trial and prison for starting a war would have on a head of state considering aggression. Such a simple and powerful deterrent could move humanity significantly closer to realizing the original vision of the United Nations: a world without war. There simply can be no lasting peace without justice. To quote Professor Sadat, “As humanity struggles to overcome its darkest impulses in this new millennium, impulses that led not only to the slaughter of hundreds of millions during the 20th century, but threaten our very survival, the creation of effective international institutions and regimes is essential … to transform the prohibitions on the commission of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression into real tools to deter the cruel and powerful.” Next year in New York, the I.C.C. Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression is scheduled to conclude their work on a definition of aggression for inclusion as an amendment to the Rome Statute. A review conference of the full I.C.C. Assembly will convene in 2010 to consider this and other amendments. The work continues. Peter Dyer is a freelance journalist who moved with his wife from California to New Zealand in 2004. He can be reached at p.dyer@inspire.net.nz . Have Your Say: Will International Law Reach Bush? Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Saving the Wealthy With Socialism Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 07:57 PM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Casualties of Another War by Tariq Ali Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 07:52 PM Acupuncture reduces breast cancer treatment symptoms Last post by Nostalgia @ 05:11 PM Blip T.V.- Melt-Down on Wall Street Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 03:53 PM 2,000 Mile Long Craft Will Appear on Oct 14th 2008 ? Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 03:13 PM Many feared dead in Finnish school shooting. Last post by Nostalgia @ 03:05 PM McCain and Palin Get Their Motor Runnin Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:06 PM Situation critical Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 02:03 PM Activists to defy Israel and sail to Gaza again Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:39 PM Georgia says downed Russian drone; Moscow denies Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:23 PM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
George W. Bush is a dry drunk $ociopath with the insight of a rabid dog. Grandfather said that we don’t pet rabid dogs. We shoot them!