Twitter Link
The US is a shithole country with no dignity.
Twitter Link
The US is a shithole country with no dignity.
WTF for?
Guessing the US doesn't like people investigating war-crimes committed by Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I thought America wasn't signed up to the ICC and it had no jurisdiction on America?
Well, that's the tricky part, isn't it? The ICC claims jurisdiction over alleged crimes that occur in territories that are party to the court, even if the individuals involved are nationals of a country that is not party to the court. What's even trickier, is that they claim jurisdiction over cases that are referred to the ICC by the UNSC even if territorial or personal jurisdictional criteria are not fulfilled.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
In this case, Afghanistan is party to the Rome Statute and therefore the ICC claims jurisdiction over acts committed by US nationals in Afghanistan, even if neither Afghanistan nor the US are willing to cooperate with such investigations. In theory the ICC would not have reason to prosecute a US national based on the principle of complementarity (assuming we were to trust the US military and civilian justice system to prosecute war crimes) but even so the US has been very sensitive to the relative ease with which politically motivated prosecutions could be brought against US nationals without the US acceding to the court's jurisdiction.
It gets even trickier for quasi-state entities. Let's say that a breakaway region (say a future Turkish Kurdistan) decides they want to become party to the Rome Statute and request an investigation into the actions of the non-signatory Turkey in said breakaway region. Does the court have the right to determine that their jurisdiction extends to this breakaway region? It opens up a whole can of worms.
The challenges with jurisdictional claims and the assumption of politically motivated prosecutions with little in the way of checks is largely why most of the major military powers in the world do not yet accept its jurisdiction, including: China, Russia, US, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran. The only semi-decent military powers that are party to the Statute are a handful of European examples, SK, and Japan.
I don't see why it's tricky. If Americans in Afghanistan break Afghani laws then they are subject to Afghani laws are they not?
I see no difference between the ICC and Afghani courts in that respect. If Afghanistan wants it's domestic territory to be subject to ICC jurisdiction then that is the sovereign decision of the Afghani government is it not?
If Americans don't want to be subject to Afghani laws, which includes the ICC, there's a simple solution.
As for the UNSC referral that's not tricky either. All UN member states have agreed to abide by UNSC decisions and in America's case it has a veto over the UNSC anyway.
If a nation left the UN then the UNSC wouldn't be able to refer an issue within that countries land could it? The UN doesn't have global jurisdiction I thought?