16 May 11
Originally posted by sh76Because according to Wikipedia, half of Africa has signed the document which gives the court jurisdiction over them.
Given that Africans have virtually no role in running the court, why should Africans respect its jurisdiction?
What I saw on TV today (a statement from the ICC) suggested that Libya had signed it too.
16 May 11
Quite aside from the issues of the Court's legitimacy and possible bias, there's good reason to question the wisdom of issuing warrants on the Libyan leadership at this point. It gives Qadaffi a disincentive to leave power. More importantly, it gives Qaddaffi's military leaders a strong incentive to stick by him to the bloody end - if they abandon him now they still quite possibly might be subject to prosecution for prior acts. That makes it in their self-interest not to do what everybody but Qaddaffi wants them to
16 May 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThe problems in Zimbabwe are for this very reason. If Mugabe finally steps down and the opposition gets full control, then a significant proportion of the army, police, politicians etc would be at risk of being tried for various crimes.
More importantly, it gives Qaddaffi's military leaders a strong incentive to stick by him to the bloody end - if they abandon him now they still quite possibly might be subject to prosecution for prior acts. That makes it in their self-interest not to do what everybody but Qaddaffi wants them to
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Let me help you:
Most of that information is on the Wikipedia page I linked to. As to the information that's not on the Wikipedia page, I don't know (though I did browse their site a bit this morning).
Other than calling the court a "European creation" I didn't mention anything about Europe at all in my OP. It was created by the Rome statute in Europe, it is mostly funded by he court for seemingly only going after Africans. Do you agree with this criticism or not?
Who set up the court? The UN did.
How many countries signed the treaty that established it? Loads
Which ones ratified it? Loads
How are the funding contributions determined? By ability to pay, just like the UN.
Where is the president of the court from? Korea.
Where is the vice-president of the court from? Mali.
Which nationalities are the judges in the court from? From all continents.
Where is the Head of the Office of the Prosecutor from? Argentina.
Where is the person in charge of the Prosecution Division of the Office of the Prosecutor from? Gambia.
16 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaAll former European colonies! And besides, the head office in in Europe!
Let me help you:
[b]Who set up the court? The UN did.
How many countries signed the treaty that established it? Loads
Which ones ratified it? Loads
How are the funding contributions determined? By ability to pay, just like the UN.
Where is the president of the court from? Korea.
Where is the vice-president of ...[text shortened]... e person in charge of the Prosecution Division of the Office of the Prosecutor from? Gambia.[/b]
16 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaIrregardless, as Paulie Walnuts would say, it's funded mostly by Europe, it was negotiated in Europe and it sits in Europe.
Let me help you:
[b]Who set up the court? The UN did.
How many countries signed the treaty that established it? Loads
Which ones ratified it? Loads
How are the funding contributions determined? By ability to pay, just like the UN.
Where is the president of the court from? Korea.
Where is the vice-president of ...[text shortened]... e person in charge of the Prosecution Division of the Office of the Prosecutor from? Gambia.[/b]
In any case, the allegation of it being a European device came directly from the article in the OP (from the Libyans). If you disagree with that, fine. Whether the court is European or Asian or American or anything else has little bearing on the question of whether it's smart or viable for them to issue an arrest warrant for Qadaffi or whether it's an extraordinary waste of money other than being a boon to the Dutch economy.
16 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaIndeed. Many play along as Europe sways these countries to do their bidding. After all, do they want to be the next country to be attacked?
Who set up the court?
How many countries signed the treaty that established it?
Which ones ratified it?
How are the funding contributions determined?
Where is the president of the court from?
Where is the vice-president of the court from?
Which nationalities are the judges in the court from?
Where is the Head of the Office of the Prosecutor from?
Where is the person in charge of the Prosecution Division of the Office of the Prosecutor from?
16 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought the US was now a European colony? I mean, they wish to copy their health care system, among other things, and now go to war with UN consent instead of Congressional consent.
Thats a US colony and as we all know the US is a European ally.
All I can say is keep those Nobel Peac Prizes coming Europe!! The US is doing a fine job for ya!! In the interim, feel free to continue to diss the US for world wide military conquests as they continue one in Libya at your own bidding.
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy not just kill him like they did Osama? Then again, I suppose it would look bad.
Quite aside from the issues of the Court's legitimacy and possible bias, there's good reason to question the wisdom of issuing warrants on the Libyan leadership at this point. It gives Qadaffi a disincentive to leave power. More importantly, it gives Qaddaffi's military leaders a strong incentive to stick by him to the bloody end - if they abandon him no ...[text shortened]... cts. That makes it in their self-interest not to do what everybody but Qaddaffi wants them to
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76More denial. It's not irrelevant that many non-European countries agreed on it or that the top places I've mentioned feature no european.
Irregardless, as Paulie Walnuts would say, it's funded mostly by Europe, it was negotiated in Europe and it sits in Europe.
In any case, the allegation of it being a European device came directly from the article in the OP (from the Libyans). If you disagree with that, fine. Whether the court is European or Asian or American or anything else has little beari or whether it's an extraordinary waste of money other than being a boon to the Dutch economy.
How should they fund it then if not by ability to pay (measure by GDP and other economic statistics)? Should Gambia pay as much as Germany so tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists like you are placated?
Yes, I think it's great that people like Qadaffi are tried by an international court and I don't think international law agreements are extraordinary wastes of money. Much better than creating special courts for every case (leading to very few cases actually being tried) which was the status quo before.
16 May 11
Originally posted by sh76No, the allegation came from you, and you tried to back it up using the article which is obviously biased as it is from someone who stands to loose out because of the ICC.
In any case, the allegation of it being a European device came directly from the article in the OP (from the Libyans).
But neither you, nor the article writer have any leg to stand on because Libya accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC and so it is not being 'asserted' on them as you claim.