UN: Worst case

[charrison]

Originally posted by: kuk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk
If a member of the UN requests, hearings should be opened. I don't know what is going to take to bring him to court, but legally it's a fragile situation.


If these nations you mentioned request hearings, I don't know what force would refrain this from happening.

Well the US could always veto it.....

But will it have this power after running over the U.N.?

The US wrote the UN charter.

The UN has no power to take care of 3rd world dictator. Can you say League of Nations?

 

[arynn]

Has the UN ever held any kind of hearings for war?

I thought the only reason the UN would have any kind of hearing would be due to human rights violations. War in and of itself is not usually grounds for a trial. Furthermore, they only bring the loser of a war to trial.

 

[kuk]

Originally posted by: arynn
Has the UN ever held any kind of hearings for war?

I thought the only reason the UN would have any kind of hearing would be due to human rights violations. War in and of itself is not usually grounds for a trial. Furthermore, they only bring the loser of a war to trial.

Remember that in the scenario proposed above, legally it's not a war ... it's an agression.

(I don't want to debate if it is indeed an agression considering this and that about iraq, w.o.m.d., blablabla ..... I'm looking at this from a technical point of view)

 

[KK]

Where are all the folks that think the UN is relevent? Are they starting to get the point, or can they just not refute any point brought up?

KK

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: kuk

Originally posted by: arynn
Has the UN ever held any kind of hearings for war?

I thought the only reason the UN would have any kind of hearing would be due to human rights violations. War in and of itself is not usually grounds for a trial. Furthermore, they only bring the loser of a war to trial.

Remember that in the scenario proposed above, legally it's not a war ... it's an agression.

(I don't want to debate if it is indeed an agression considering this and that about iraq, w.o.m.d., blablabla ..... I'm looking at this from a technical point of view)

Legally it is war. Iraq has not complied with resolution 687 so this is a continuation of the gulf war. Legally the US is strong legal ground to go to war.

 

[arynn]

I still don't see any justification for a war crimes trial for any conventional war (or aggression). This is especially true for the victor in said war (aggression). Furthermore, who is going to force Bush to stand trial? I don't know of any entity with that kind of power. Only the US judicial system (after he leaves office) or the Senate would have that power.

 

[Bluga]

Originally posted by: PMoore
War stinks as much as the Bush administration!

 

[XCLAN]

all the ignorance before me will be the end of the united states...
i hate to think about it but we americans think we are invincible. we are going to be one of the largest targets in the world when it comes to terrorism and other large countries such as russia, n.korea, china would gain great power by goin to war with us and defeating us...instant wealth and power.
we exhaust our resources eventually a large attack on the US is iminent.
then again who am i to say?
i have little or no education on these matters.

 

[kuk]

Charrison, I've found something that might answer some questions:

Taken from this site.

What crimes will the Court try?

The Court has a mandate to try individuals rather than States and to hold them accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and, eventually, the crime of aggression. A common misperception is that the Court will be able to try those accused of having committed such crimes in the past, but this is not the case. The Court will have jurisdiction only over crimes committed after 1 July 2002*, when the Statute entered into force.

(...)

War crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions** and other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict, and in armed conflict "not of an international character", as listed in the Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale.

(...)

What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?

Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression. ***

* Won't be retroactive. Regarding the cases of China, France and Russia, there's nothing the International Court can do.
** I really don't know if ignoring the UN's decision is going against the Geneva Convention. I'll have to look this up.
*** I take back what I said about aggression, as it's difficult to draw a line between agression and war. But both should be basis for prosecution.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: arynn
If the US pulls out of the UN it will cease to exist. The League of Nations didn't last too long without the US; neither would the UN.

Regardless, the UN will cease to have any relevance in world affairs (at least for the foreseeable future) after the US attacks Iraq.

if the UN vetoes the resolution and the US attacks, kiss the UN goodbye. it will have lost all credibility. then the world will be even more unstable since there will no longer be a central diplomatic organization. then something new will come up, and stability will take foot.

much like a revolution and over throwing the govt. you overthrow something, it gets worst b4 it gets better.

but will there be another UN-like organization?? as history has proved, it's all about the US. the organization is the US. he who has the most power makes the rules. if the rules somehow go against, then the US will simply leave and form a new organization. ie: nato vs warsaw pact. now it'll be us/britain in the new organization and france/germany/russia/china trying to save the UN. and the other countries can decide whether to be exclusively be in the UN, or exclusively be in the new organization, or be a member of both.

in the end, there will be a merger between new and old. but this wont happen till the children of the next generation comes about, w/o any 1st hand knowledge or emotional feeling about the Fall of the UN.

oh geez..i gota copyright "Fall of the UN" HOW DO I DO THAT?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: XCLAN
all the ignorance before me will be the end of the united states...
i hate to think about it but we americans think we are invincible. we are going to be one of the largest targets in the world when it comes to terrorism and other large countries such as russia, n.korea, china would gain great power by goin to war with us and defeating us...instant wealth and power.
we exhaust our resources eventually a large attack on the US is iminent.
then again who am i to say?
i have little or no education on these matters.

How can the ignorant be the judge of ignorance. I will not claim that the US will be on top forever, I do wonder the implications of the walking over the UN will be. I think those that veto a new resolution will look as fools after Iraq is liberated.

 

[kuk]

Originally posted by: arynn
I still don't see any justification for a war crimes trial for any conventional war (or aggression). This is especially true for the victor in said war (aggression). Furthermore, who is going to force Bush to stand trial? I don't know of any entity with that kind of power. Only the US judicial system (after he leaves office) or the Senate would have that power.

From the site I quoted above:

What is the relationship between the international Court and national courts?

The Court's jurisdiction is very carefully set out in the Statute. The entire premise of the Court is based on the principle of complementarity, which means that the Court can only exercise its jurisdiction when a national court is unable or unwilling to genuinely do so itself. The first priority always goes to national courts. The International Criminal Court is in no way meant to replace the authority of national courts. But there may be times when a State's court system collapses and ceases to function. Similarly, there may be governments that condone or participate in an atrocity themselves, or officials may be reluctant to prosecute someone in a position of great power and authority.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: kuk
Charrison, I've found something that might answer some questions:

Taken from this site.

What crimes will the Court try?

The Court has a mandate to try individuals rather than States and to hold them accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and, eventually, the crime of aggression. A common misperception is that the Court will be able to try those accused of having committed such crimes in the past, but this is not the case. The Court will have jurisdiction only over crimes committed after 1 July 2002*, when the Statute entered into force.

(...)

War crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions** and other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict, and in armed conflict "not of an international character", as listed in the Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale.

(...)

What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?

Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression. ***

* Won't be retroactive. Regarding the cases of China, France and Russia, there's nothing the International Court can do.

Holding the US to a different standard by ignoring past aggressions of permanent member of the security council

** I really don't know if ignoring the UN's decision is going against the Geneva Convention. I'll have to look this up.
UN charter and geneva convention are unrelated

*** I take back what I said about aggression, as it's difficult to draw a line between agression and war. But both should be basis for prosecution.

But you only want to prosecute the US for its "aggression". Hypocritical dont ya think?


AND the US is not a member of the ICC because of these hypocritical reasoning.

 

[JEDI]

oh, as for war crimes, or charges brought up by the genvia convention...What will the world do if Bush refuses to be tried. it was easy when it was a small country protecting the criminal. just send the US to capture him (in the guise of a UN colition).

but if bush flips the international community the bird, what can they do? declare war on the US? And even if they do, can the ENTIRE world combined beat the might of US/Britain?

like i said, he who has the power makes the rules. And w/the US being the only SuperPower left in the world, theres nothing to oppose bush. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. if the US turns evil, who is going to stop us? except maybe ourselves in a new civil war to try to overthrow the evil dictator, if it ever comes to that. then it will be up to the generals to decide. god, this is beginning to sound like Babylon 5

want to lay odds that *IF* bush wins reelection by some mircle, that he wont change the consitution to get rid of the 2 term presidency rule?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: XFILE
oh, as for war crimes, or charges brought up by the genvia convention...What will the world do if Bush refuses to be tried. it was easy when it was a small country protecting the criminal. just send the US to capture him (in the guise of a UN colition).

but if bush flips the international community the bird, what can they do? declare war on the US? And even if they do, can the ENTIRE world combined beat the might of US/Britain?

like i said, he who has the power makes the rules. And w/the US being the only SuperPower left in the world, theres nothing to oppose bush. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. if the US turns evil, who is going to stop us? except maybe ourselves in a new civil war to try to overthrow the evil dictator, if it ever comes to that. then it will be up to the generals to decide. god, this is beginning to sound like Babylon 5

want to lay odds that *IF* bush wins reelection by some mircle, that he wont change the consitution to get rid of the 2 term presidency rule?

Bush has 0 zero chance of changing the constitution as that requires the senate with 3/4 majority.

 

[kuk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk
Charrison, I've found something that might answer some questions:

Taken from this site.

What crimes will the Court try?

The Court has a mandate to try individuals rather than States and to hold them accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and, eventually, the crime of aggression. A common misperception is that the Court will be able to try those accused of having committed such crimes in the past, but this is not the case. The Court will have jurisdiction only over crimes committed after 1 July 2002*, when the Statute entered into force.

(...)

War crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions** and other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict, and in armed conflict "not of an international character", as listed in the Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale.

(...)

What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?

Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression. ***

* Won't be retroactive. Regarding the cases of China, France and Russia, there's nothing the International Court can do.

Holding the US to a different standard by ignoring past aggressions of permanent member of the security council

** I really don't know if ignoring the UN's decision is going against the Geneva Convention. I'll have to look this up.
UN charter and geneva convention are unrelated

*** I take back what I said about aggression, as it's difficult to draw a line between agression and war. But both should be basis for prosecution.

But you only want to prosecute the US for its "aggression". Hypocritical dont ya think?


AND the US is not a member of the ICC because of these hypocritical reasoning.

I don't want to prosecute the US. Maybe Iraq and a handful of european countries. Leave me out of this.

Seriously: The concept of "aggression" that I used is different from what is stated in the ICJ statute. To me, it's a unilateral aggresion in the form of armed conflict, while the term "war" as an armed conflict backed up legally by the UN. It was my mistake.

UN charter and geneva convention are unrelated

OK, but it can still fall under the "other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict" category.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: kuk

I don't want to prosecute the US. Maybe Iraq and a handful of european countries. Leave me out of this.



Seriously: The concept of "aggression" that I used is different from what is stated in the ICJ statute. To me, it's a unilateral aggresion in the form of armed conflict, while the term "war" as an armed conflict backed up legally by the UN. It was my mistake.

This will be a multilateral action(20+countries) backed up by sound legal right to finish the gulf war.

UN charter and geneva convention are unrelated

OK, but it can still fall under the "other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict" category.

I dont think the geneva convention has anything to say about why wars are waged, only how they are waged.

 

[kuk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: kuk

This will be a multilateral action(20+countries) backed up by sound legal right to finish the gulf war.

But it's still not legally backed by the UN.

UN charter and geneva convention are unrelated

OK, but it can still fall under the "other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict" category.

I dont think the geneva convention has anything to say about why wars are waged, only how they are waged.

I know ... i disregarded the geneva convention in my last post.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. It's past 3AM here. Good conversation, although I'm slightly annoyed by the thoughts of those who consider that the US has more power and authority than the world combined (not you Charrison).

Gnight.