South Africa Announces Plan to Leave ICC

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Bwahahaha. I recall this other player on here claiming that countries can't simply up and leave the treaties they agreed to, but it looks like South Africa is doing just that in unilaterally breaking ties with the ICC. I was vindicated. In the end, treaties in general can and do get reduced to just a piece of paper that is freely discarded. My congratulations to South Africa for retaking their judicial independence.

Not without severe diplomatic repercussions, they can't. Other nations won't exactly be thankful. Besides, because this is a UN treaty, they have little choice but sit out the procedure as defined by the treaty. If not... things could get ugly diplomatically, and real fast. Besides, the parliament saying they are going to leave and them actually leaving are two different things entirely. Parliaments in general aren't exactly known for putting a matter in a nuanced light. They may shout whatever they want, but they still have to stick to the treaty, even if they leave. At least for a year.

Anyway, if the ICC threatens your judicial independence, you have a weak independence to begin with. It's not like this frees South Africa to disregard international law as they please. There is still the International Court of Justice they have to contend with, and that organisation is far older and more present than the ICC.

[Lydenburg]

What a bloody stupid step backwards by the geniuses in charge.

Bad enough we failed at implementing the SADC court, now we have to withdraw from the ICC as well?

I guess Zuma's worried about some of our "friends" in the region showing up at the Hague someday. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Lydenburg]

Zimbabwe may not be a single party state, but that doesn't make Robert Mugabe any less of a vote rigging, rights crushing dictator who has a penchant for ethnic cleansing and essentially turning his country from one of Africa's leading agricultural producers into a basket case with rampant corruption and a worthless currency.



And how has that turned out? Zimbabwe's economy has tanked, it's currency worthless and millions of Zimbabweans live in abject poverty.

Ethnic cleansing? This aint the Balkan wars. You can criticize Zimbabwe for corruption and abuses but expropriating land from rich landowners is not tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Nor does Mugabe qualify as a dictator when the African Union has backed the legitimacy of his elections. It is extremely difficult to transition out of colonialism and while you can rightly point out the many short comings of the regime it is legitimate and it is trying to lift Zimbabwe out of the chains of imperialism. Let the people of Zimbabwe determine their own destiny

Sigh, somebody else who should really be stuck on the next flight to Harare but will probably go kicking and screaming if they are.

Look at how easy it is to write off entire countries and people from behind a computer screen my boetie.

[Napkiraly]

Oh, the clue is the name, I see. Using that logic, it's crystal clear that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, since the clue is in the name. Where's the ICC located? Hmm, that'd be the Hague. Has the ICC tried any dictators that are backed by EU countries and/or the US? Not were backed but then dumped, but are backed? Like, say, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo? Oh, and there's also this: Three signatory states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute. By a purely masterful coincidence, only the African country's targeted. So when's the ICC going after Americans who profited off of the Iraq War in an illegal manner? Oh right, never. Furthermore, as I read the names of those indicted, nearly all of them happen to be from Africa. Good to know that there's so little crime happening everywhere else. But hey, it's totally not a Court where mostly Africans are tried. It's "international", since it's in the name. And North Korea's "democratic", since that's also, in the name.

Here's a report on their activities thus far. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Pre-Exam-2014.pdf. They are currently investigating potential war crimes carried out by British personnel in Iraq. They are also investigating war crimes by pro-government forces in Afghanistan. And the Gaza flotilla raid.

I'm not sure if you realise, but investigations of this sort can take awhile to complete. And there's the fact of the previous criteria that have to be met in order for the court to investigate.

[Wormold]

I just admitted that it's the ICTY, not the ICC. And the ICTY should've put Thaci on trial when they put Milosevic on trial. They didn't, and as a result the ICTY came off as a "my side yay, your side boo" kind of court. Not exactly something that'll promote fair jurisprudence.

Again, I already admitted the ICC-ICTY error.

Then Milosevic and Thaci are irrelevant to this thread.

Oh, the clue is the name, I see. Using that logic, it's crystal clear that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, since the clue is in the name.

The clue is the name, not the reasoning. The reasoning that the International Criminal Court is a world court and not merely a European Court is its international membership, its key officials who come from South America, Africa and Asia and its judges who come from most all over the world. What is the reasoning that makes your claim that it is a European court valid?

Where's the ICC located? Hmm, that'd be the Hague.

Where's the UN located? New York. Where is FIFA located? Zurich. Are the UN and FIFA not world, rather than North American or European organisations?

Has the ICC tried any dictators that are backed by EU countries and/or the US? Not were backed but then dumped, but are backed? Like, say, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo?

The ICC indicted Ange-Félix Patassé who France deployed troops to keep in power when faced with an army mutiny.

Equatorial Guinea is not a member of the ICC so Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo is not within its jurisdiction. Can you name a US or EU backed dictator who falls within the ICC's jurisdiction, who has committed one of the crimes that the ICC prosecutes but that the ICC has refused to prosecute a complaint made against them?

Oh, and there's also this: Three signatory states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute. By a purely masterful coincidence, only the African country's targeted.

Because only Sudan has had a UNSC resolution passed calling for the ICC to investigate and prosecute, allowing the ICC to take action even though Sudan is not a member of the court.

So when's the ICC going after Americans who profited off of the Iraq War in an illegal manner? Oh right, never.

Yes, never. Neither the US or Iraq are ICC members so they do not fall within the ICC's jurisdiction and they are unlikely to be referred by the UNSC.

Furthermore, as I read the names of those indicted, nearly all of them happen to be from Africa. Good to know that there's so little crime happening everywhere else. But hey, it's totally not a Court where mostly Africans are tried. It's "international", since it's in the name. And North Korea's "democratic", since that's also, in the name.

Just because the court mostly tries Africans doesn't mean that its not an international court and it certainly doesn't mean that its a "European court" as you claimed. Of the 9 situations where indictments have been issued, five were requested by African governments themselves who clearly thought that their own legal systems were insufficient for the seriousness of the crimes committed and that the ICC represented the most appropriate method of seeking justice. Two more were referred to the court by the UN Security Council, an international body. and the final two cases were ordered by the chief prosecutor who was at that time an Argentinian. So although those indicted have been African the cases have been referred by various groups and individuals from across the world not one of which can be described as European.

[Shofercia]

Opinions are pointless unless someone argued against them? Lolwut!

You're aware of the bias, but is everyone reading this thread aware of it?

I'll get back to you on 3&4 later on.

I said it was a pointless remark since no one in their right mind thinks otherwise.

Anyone with an inkling of information about the ICC should be aware of the bias criticisms it receives.

Of course.

Never underestimate NSG:

So Hitler is morally equivalent to MLK Jr. in your book, right?

Yes.

Oh, my.

Bwahahaha. I recall this other player on here claiming that countries can't simply up and leave the treaties they agreed to, but it looks like South Africa is doing just that in unilaterally breaking ties with the ICC. I was vindicated. In the end, treaties in general can and do get reduced to just a piece of paper that is freely discarded. My congratulations to South Africa for retaking their judicial independence.

Depends on the treaty.

Oh, the clue is the name, I see. Using that logic, it's crystal clear that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, since the clue is in the name. Where's the ICC located? Hmm, that'd be the Hague. Has the ICC tried any dictators that are backed by EU countries and/or the US? Not were backed but then dumped, but are backed? Like, say, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo? Oh, and there's also this: Three signatory states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute. By a purely masterful coincidence, only the African country's targeted. So when's the ICC going after Americans who profited off of the Iraq War in an illegal manner? Oh right, never. Furthermore, as I read the names of those indicted, nearly all of them happen to be from Africa. Good to know that there's so little crime happening everywhere else. But hey, it's totally not a Court where mostly Africans are tried. It's "international", since it's in the name. And North Korea's "democratic", since that's also, in the name.

Here's a report on their activities thus far. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Pre-Exam-2014.pdf. They are currently investigating potential war crimes carried out by British personnel in Iraq. They are also investigating war crimes by pro-government forces in Afghanistan. And the Gaza flotilla raid.

I'm not sure if you realise, but investigations of this sort can take awhile to complete. And there's the fact of the previous criteria that have to be met in order for the court to investigate.

I'll wait for those indictments, but I doubt that they'll ever come. Maybe some low rankings Afghans will be thrown to the ICC, but that's about it.

Oh, the clue is the name, I see. Using that logic, it's crystal clear that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, since the clue is in the name.

The clue is the name, not the reasoning. The reasoning that the International Criminal Court is a world court and not merely a European Court is its international membership, its key officials who come from South America, Africa and Asia and its judges who come from most all over the world. What is the reasoning that makes your claim that it is a European court valid?

Because I've yet to see someone currently backed by the EU convicted, whereas some dictators who opposed the EU, are. My criticism of it is that it's a "my side yay, your side boo" court. I'm not saying that Bashir's innocent, far from it. I am saying that the court is biased.

Where's the ICC located? Hmm, that'd be the Hague.

Where's the UN located? New York. Where is FIFA located? Zurich. Are the UN and FIFA not world, rather than North American or European organisations?

You do know who the most powerful UN member is, right? I'm not sure what FIFA has to do with country power projections though. Furthermore, the UN's key organ is the UNSC, whose goal is to prevent military escalation. America's goal is also to prevent military escalation, it's just that the US has a higher tolerance of military intervention, but after a certain point, the goals align. Until I see someone who's allied with the EU and not African being convicted, I won't change my mind.

Has the ICC tried any dictators that are backed by EU countries and/or the US? Not were backed but then dumped, but are backed? Like, say, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo?

The ICC indicted Ange-Félix Patassé who France deployed troops to keep in power when faced with an army mutiny.

Equatorial Guinea is not a member of the ICC so Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo is not within its jurisdiction. Can you name a US or EU backed dictator who falls within the ICC's jurisdiction, who has committed one of the crimes that the ICC prosecutes but that the ICC has refused to prosecute a complaint made against them?

Link to Patasse's indictment please.

Oh, and there's also this: Three signatory states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute. By a purely masterful coincidence, only the African country's targeted.

Because only Sudan has had a UNSC resolution passed calling for the ICC to investigate and prosecute, allowing the ICC to take action even though Sudan is not a member of the court.

Right, and if the UNSC passes a resolution against US or Israel, would you like to guess how quickly it'll be vetoed?

So when's the ICC going after Americans who profited off of the Iraq War in an illegal manner? Oh right, never.

Yes, never. Neither the US or Iraq are ICC members so they do not fall within the ICC's jurisdiction and they are unlikely to be referred by the UNSC.

Seems like a structural flaw there. If you're a dictator, simply befriend a permanent UNSC member and don't join the ICC. Before the CoE acted like a bunch of idiots, do you think that the ECHR gave a shit whether or not Russia was a permanent UNSC member if the Kremlin broke the law?

Furthermore, as I read the names of those indicted, nearly all of them happen to be from Africa. Good to know that there's so little crime happening everywhere else. But hey, it's totally not a Court where mostly Africans are tried. It's "international", since it's in the name. And North Korea's "democratic", since that's also, in the name.

Just because the court mostly tries Africans doesn't mean that its not an international court and it certainly doesn't mean that its a "European court" as you claimed. Of the 9 situations where indictments have been issued, five were requested by African governments themselves who clearly thought that their own legal systems were insufficient for the seriousness of the crimes committed and that the ICC represented the most appropriate method of seeking justice. Two more were referred to the court by the UN Security Council, an international body. and the final two cases were ordered by the chief prosecutor who was at that time an Argentinian. So although those indicted have been African the cases have been referred by various groups and individuals from across the world not one of which can be described as European.

Mostly Africans? Who's a non African that's been convicted?

[Wormold]

Because I've yet to see someone currently backed by the EU convicted, whereas some dictators who opposed the EU, are. My criticism of it is that it's a "my side yay, your side boo" court. I'm not saying that Bashir's innocent, far from it. I am saying that the court is biased.

No dictators have been convicted by the ICC. If you mean indicted, I count three possible dictators who have been indicted by the ICC - Omar al-Bashir, Muammar Gaddafi and Laurent Gbagbo. While its true that none of these people were backed by the EU, they weren't backed by any major world powers at the time of their indictments. Neither the US, Russia or China sought to defend these leaders at the UNSC when the UN resolved to refer the former two to the ICC or Gbagbo when the UN resolved to demand his relinquishing power. Does this mean that the ICC is a US court, because it hasn't indicted a US backed dictator? A Russian court, because it hasn't indicted a Russian backed dictator? A Chinese court, because it hasn't indicted a Chinese backed dictator?

You do know who the most powerful UN member is, right? I'm not sure what FIFA has to do with country power projections though. Furthermore, the UN's key organ is the UNSC, whose goal is to prevent military escalation. America's goal is also to prevent military escalation, it's just that the US has a higher tolerance of military intervention, but after a certain point, the goals align. Until I see someone who's allied with the EU and not African being convicted, I won't change my mind.

Until you explain who these EU allied people are, who fall into the ICC's jurisdiction, but haven't been indicted I am going to call them a figment of your imagination. And the ICC doesn't investigate figments of your imagination.

Link to Patasse's indictment please.

No, that's right - it was his accomplice Bemba who was arrested. Patasse hid out in Togo where the ICC couldn't get him, then the CAR leader who overthrew Patasse reconciled with him and let him live there until his death. From the comments that the prosecutor made during Bemba's trial it sounds like there would have been a sealed warrant for both of them, but Patasse didn't make the mistake of going to Belgium.

Seems like a structural flaw there. If you're a dictator, simply befriend a permanent UNSC member and don't join the ICC. Before the CoE acted like a bunch of idiots, do you think that the ECHR gave a shit whether or not Russia was a permanent UNSC member if the Kremlin broke the law?

Its not a system that guarantees justice for major international crimes, but such a system cannot exist. It is however the most practical way for the court to operate under the current system of international relations. Treaties like the Rome Statute are voluntary - if a country does not want to join it there is no system to compel them to join. If the international community wishes to force a country to act the legal way of compelling action is through the Security Council.

The ECHR doesn't care if Russia is a UNSC member because it is a voluntary member of the ECHR system. The ICC is just as capable of prosecuting a case against individuals from UNSC countries within its jurisdiction as the ECHR is capable of hearing cases against UNSC states within its jurisdiction. A country can avoid having to deal with the ECHR just as easily as they can avoid dealing with the ICC by simply not becoming a member. The difference is that the Security Council can refer people from non-members of the ICC to the court, whereas it cannot do the same to non-members of the ECHR.

Mostly Africans? Who's a non African that's been convicted?

I don't know, it was your expression I was referring to.

But hey, it's totally not a Court where mostly Africans are tried.