NationStates

Just a few minutes ago, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) found that the Pre-trial chamber of the ICC erred when it decided not to give the ICC Prosecutor authorisation to investigate the 'situation in Afghanistan'. The Appeals Chamber has, in the place of the Pre-trial chamber, taken the decision to grant Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda authorisation to investigate that situation.

This means that the ICC will investigate whether any war crimes or crimes against humanity have been committed on the territory of Afghanistan and, if this is in the interest of justice, the Court will have jurisdiction to try any individuals suspected of having committed those crimes. This includes individuals who are citizens of countries that might not have ratified the Rome Statute, including United States soldiers.

The Pre-trial chamber, in its first decision, decided not to give authorisation on the basis that such an investigation was not in the interest of justice, since the Taliban and the US government were equally unlikely to cooperate with the ICC in this matter. The Appeals Chamber found that the Pre-trial chamber was not tasked with making that distinction, since that power resides with the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor alone. Since she decided that an investigation of the situation in Afghanistan was in the interest of justice, the Pre-trial chamber has only limited authority to consider otherwise.

Not only has the Appeals Chamber decided that the investigation in Afghanistan may commence; it has also decided that the CIA prisons in countries like Poland and Lithuania can also be subject to these investigations. Allegedly, the United States has subject prisoners of war to torture there, which would be in contravention of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

The ICC has long been plagued by allegations of racism and neo-colonialism. Since its inception it has only tried cases originating in Africa, while many crimes have been committed elsewhere. This is partly due to the fact that the ICC is an ancillary court, and it will only use its jurisdiction if a State itself is unwilling or unable to prosecute. War-torn nations in central Africa have been unable to provide that kind of justice, but that is of course not a uniquely African issue. Nevertheless, with investigations into Israel and Afghanistan ongoing, we are seeing that the ICC is ambitiously broadening its scope beyond the continent of Africa.

So, NSG. As the Pinnacle of Justice, the Final Appeals Forum, what say thee?

In my opinion, this is a legally sound decision. Indeed, according to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor is free to investigate the situation in Afghanistan, since Afghanistan is party to the Rome Statute. Any crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. The question whether the Taliban or the US will cooperate is not important for the question whether investigations need to be opened. By the time the investigations are done, the political situation might have changed. More importantly, the willingness of perpetrators to assist in the adjudication of crimes should not be the prime determiner in the question whether those crimes should be adjudicated. In my opinion, that question is one of convenience, not of law.

However, this question is broader than merely the question whether the Pre-trial chamber erred. More broadly, given that the investigation is lawful, what do you think will come out? Should US personnel be tried if the investigation finds that they committed crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court? What crimes do you think have been committed?

(Note: I got this info by watching the live stream of the decision, once news stories become available I will share those here)

Oh boy this is going to be fun. I am sure Bensouda from The Gambia™ (yes its actually named like that) will deliever an most excellent performance; after all Bensouda was the solicitor general and legal adviser of gambian President Yahya Jammeh before becoming his Minister of Justice in August 1998 and being dismissed in March 2000.

Former gambian President Yahya Jammeh is renoved and internationally well known, amongst other things for declaring that he would rule a billion years if necessary. Which didn materialized as he was toppled in 2017 in a shortlived civil war inside The Gambia™.

He had also an most outstanding record in gay rights, too.

The legalities of Afghanistan are in experienced hands for sure. The best people after all. Exactly as promised by Trump.

Institutions like the ICC and ICJ lack the authority to enforce their own rulings, are routinely ignored by national governments, and their jurisdiction is not widely respected. Maybe someday that will change, but for now they are useless.

One recalls when the ICC ordered South Africa’s government to arrest the president of Sudan for Darcie war crimes when he was there on a state visit. Of course South Africa declined. Detaining another head of state while he’s on official business would upend a country’s foreign policy and obliterate their preexisting relations with that state. But that’s just one example of how little the ICC counts for.

I'm sure both the United States army and the Taliban committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. I'm also sure no one will actually be arrested for them

Rojava Free State wrote:I'm sure both the United States army and the Taliban committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. I'm also sure no one will actually be arrested for them

Given that Chief Investigator Fatou Bensouda worked previously for Yahya Jammeh as his personal legal advisor and Minister of Justice, the former batshit insane President of The Gambia, we can be sure that procedures will be the best.

Given the prosecutor involved and the country they are attempting to target, one could not ask for a better opportunity to further discredit that joke of an institution. I applaud the ICC for it's lack of prudence and impotence. Bravo!

is It really a war crime when the Taliban are the victims?

Loben The 2nd wrote:is It really a war crime when the Taliban are the victims?

well yes, but these are mainly against AFGHANI CIVILIANS, not the Taliban.

Rojava Free State wrote:I'm sure both the United States army and the Taliban committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. I'm also sure no one will actually be arrested for them

Unfortunately.

Luziyca wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:I'm sure both the United States army and the Taliban committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. I'm also sure no one will actually be arrested for them

Unfortunately.

yeah, a couple presidents and many others should be locked up, but nothing will happen because America is the sole superpower.

I laugh at their feeble attempt.

Nakena wrote:Oh boy this is going to be fun. I am sure Bensouda from The Gambia™ (yes its actually named like that) will deliever an most excellent performance; after all Bensouda was the solicitor general and legal adviser of gambian President Yahya Jammeh before becoming his Minister of Justice in August 1998 and being dismissed in March 2000.

Former gambian President Yahya Jammeh is renoved and internationally well known, amongst other things for declaring that he would rule a billion years if necessary. Which didn materialized as he was toppled in 2017 in a shortlived civil war inside The Gambia™.

He had also an most outstanding record in gay rights, too.

The legalities of Afghanistan are in experienced hands for sure. The best people after all. Exactly as promised by Trump.

Reminds me of how Yemen is on the UN Women executive board and Saudi Arabia is on the UN Human Rights Council.

These international organizations aren't sending their best.

The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.

Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.

Aclion wrote:The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.

Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.

Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...

Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

Crockerland wrote:

Nakena wrote:Oh boy this is going to be fun. I am sure Bensouda from The Gambia™ (yes its actually named like that) will deliever an most excellent performance; after all Bensouda was the solicitor general and legal adviser of gambian President Yahya Jammeh before becoming his Minister of Justice in August 1998 and being dismissed in March 2000.

Former gambian President Yahya Jammeh is renoved and internationally well known, amongst other things for declaring that he would rule a billion years if necessary. Which didn materialized as he was toppled in 2017 in a shortlived civil war inside The Gambia™.

He had also an most outstanding record in gay rights, too.

The legalities of Afghanistan are in experienced hands for sure. The best people after all. Exactly as promised by Trump.

Reminds me of how Yemen is on the UN Women executive board and Saudi Arabia is on the UN Human Rights Council.

These international organizations aren't sending their best.

Getting these countries involved in these bodies is actually a tried and tested way to get them to improve their human rights record, and it has worked multiple times in the past (and it is slowly working now).

Nakena wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:I'm sure both the United States army and the Taliban committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. I'm also sure no one will actually be arrested for them

Given that Chief Investigator Fatou Bensouda worked previously for Yahya Jammeh as his personal legal advisor and Minister of Justice, the former batshit insane President of The Gambia, we can be sure that procedures will be the best.

Note that your criticism of Bensouda is entirely based on the fact that she worked for a certain president. Employ, mind, she abandoned when things got bad, and as minister she was actually a bastion of justice in an otherwise violent regime. Her personal record goes against that of the president she worked for.

Aside from that, her record on the ICC speaks for itself. She has gotten various criminals convicted.

Krasny-Volny wrote:Institutions like the ICC and ICJ lack the authority to enforce their own rulings, are routinely ignored by national governments, and their jurisdiction is not widely respected. Maybe someday that will change, but for now they are useless.

One recalls when the ICC ordered South Africa’s government to arrest the president of Sudan for Darcie war crimes when he was there on a state visit. Of course South Africa declined. Detaining another head of state while he’s on official business would upend a country’s foreign policy and obliterate their preexisting relations with that state. But that’s just one example of how little the ICC counts for.

Al-Bashir is actually looking at eviction from Sudan soon, if rumours are to be believed. Anyway, yes, the courts are not perfect. That's mostly because of the principle of sovereignty. However, within that system, despite that lack of power, both the ICC and ICJ have achieved notable successes.

You have to admire perseverence against the odds, no?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Aclion wrote:The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.

Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.

Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?

Aclion wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?

But muh international law

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Aclion wrote:You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?

But muh international law

How many divisions does the ICC have?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Aclion wrote:The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.

Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.

Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...

Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

The Dutch government is made up of cowards and weaklings who bend under pressure. There is no real fear when we have the Invade the Hague Act :^)

Edit: Smart move by both Bush and Obama for once.

Aclion wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?

But you understand that Afghanistan can determine the law in their own country, yes? Or do you think that Americans can bring their guns wherever?

If Americans are arrested in another country, that arrest is lawful. Afghani sovereignty over their own territory is paramount, and they decided that the Rome Statute applies to their territory.

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Aclion wrote:You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?

But muh international law

Aclion’s claim was one of international law. I responded.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Aclion wrote:You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?

But you understand that Afghanistan can determine the law in their own country, yes? Or do you think that Americans can bring their guns wherever?

If Americans are arrested in another country, that arrest is lawful. Afghani sovereignty over their own territory is paramount, and they decided that the Rome Statute applies to their territory.

If enough Americans show up with guns, yes yes we can bring them wherever. Ask the Iraqis.

So what if it is? The law means nothing if we either break them out or break the government trying to impose it's misguided will.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Aclion wrote:You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?

But you understand that Afghanistan can determine the law in their own country, yes? Or do you think that Americans can bring their guns wherever?

If Americans are arrested in another country, that arrest is lawful. Afghani sovereignty over their own territory is paramount, and they decided that the Rome Statute applies to their territory.

For very obvious reasons the are significant limitations on local jurisdiction over foreign military personnel, this is why there is a separate body of law specifically for military personnel. This is why when military personnel are arrested by local authority they contact the persons superiors to handle the issue instead of trying to prosecute them themselves.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Aclion’s claim was one of international law. I responded.

Your response was circular and therefore shit.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Aclion wrote:The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.

Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.

Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...

If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.

The East Marches II wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:
But muh international law

How many divisions does the ICC have?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...

Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

The Dutch government is made up of cowards and weaklings who bend under pressure. There is no real fear when we have the Invade the Hague Act :^)

Edit: Smart move by both Bush and Obama for once.

New New Amsterdam has a nice ring to it

Crockerland wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...

If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.

Yet a crime committed by a tourist in a foreign country can get them arrested, even if said thing is not illegal in their home country. See PDA in the UAE.
So there is at least some degree of jurisdictional crossover. Unless visiting troops get diplomatic immunity, I don't actually know.

Crockerland wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...

If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.

I mean I really don’t think the Afghanis would care to much about gay troops especially since Man Love Thursday’s are a thing

Alvecia wrote:

Crockerland wrote:If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.


It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.

Yet a crime committed by a tourist in a foreign country can get them arrested, even if said thing is not illegal in their home country. See PDA in the UAE.
So there is at least some degree of jurisdictional crossover. Unless visiting troops get diplomatic immunity, I don't actually know.

US troops are immune to the laws of the nations they are stationed in. So tough luck ICC