http://www.sightings.com/politics5/uncourt.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>UN World Court Will
Prosecute American Citizens
By Betsy Pisik
The Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/
12-4-99
U.N. crimes court gets support without US
http://www.washtimes.com/internatl/internatl1.html
The United States has resigned itself to the eventual
creation -- over Washington's objections -- of a U.N.
International Criminal Court to be modeled after war
crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
Even if the United States does not ratify the treaty,
American citizens will be subject to arrest and trial as the
treaty document is now drafted.
International backing for the court became apparent this
week as legal experts gathered at the United Nations to
discuss fine print in a treaty that would establish the world
judicial body.
David Scheffer, assistant secretary of state for war crimes
issues, acknowledged that the court is on track, even in
the United States.
"We expect many nations to ratify by the end of next
year," he told The Washington Times. He also said that
the presence of many U.S. allies on the court would
ratchet up pressure on the United States to join, but
added: "We're never going to sign a treaty we can't
support."
The United States voted against creating the court last
summer, saying that the structure of the tribunal would
not protect American troops from frivolous or politically
motivated indictments and prosecutions.
Although 90 nations have already signed the treaty, only
five have formally ratified the document. Ratification by
60 nations is required for the tribunal to begin working --
something experts expect to happen within the next two
years.
Mr. Scheffer said the U.S. delegation was still hoping to
secure language in the treaty that would provide
protection for Americans -- enough that the United States
could eventually join. He said negotiators were hoping to
make strong provisions for national prosecutions that
would pre-empt the international tribunal's jurisdiction.
They are also hoping to define agreed-upon crimes and
rules of procedure in such a way that U.S. troops would
be highly unlikely to ever be called before the court.
Mr. Scheffer said Secretary of State Madeleine K.
Albright was discussing the tribunal with her counterparts
in numerous foreign ministries.
In voting against the court's creation, the United States
was joined by a curious collection of nations: Iraq, Libya,
Israel, Russia, China and India. But supporters range
from Germany to South Africa to Australia: an
increasingly diverse and powerful bloc of nations that
experts say will provide the political leadership and
financial heft to ease concerns of smaller and more
cautious nations.
All of the European Union has signed the treaty, and Italy
has ratified it. The German government on Tuesday
announced that it would ratify the treaty but did not say
when. France has committed to ratifying it within the next
few months. The governments of Britain, Canada and the
Netherlands say they will complete ratification within the
next year.
The entire European Union is expected to approve the
statute by the end of 2000, said a statement read by a
diplomat from Finland. Finland currently holds the
rotating EU presidency. The European Union has
promised financial and legal assistance to the court, to be
located in The Hague. The court will prosecute allegations
of war crimes, genocide and other crimes against
humanity, and will do so without direct authorization of
the U.N. Security Council, where the United States holds
a veto.
Although it has no enforcement mechanism, all nations --
including the United States -- would be subject to the
international court's jurisdiction, the treaty document
says. This means that all nations will be required to
comply with the court's demands for information,
evidence, witnesses and suspects, the treaty says.
"We cannot recognize the court's competence in bringing
prosecutions against U.S. personnel engaged in official
actions when the U.S. government is not a party," Mr.
Scheffer told the U.N. legal committee in October.
The court will not be retroactive, but the existing tribunals
for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia will eventually be
rolled under its umbrella. The financing of the court has
not been decided, but many nations hope that the bulk of
the court's expenses -- particularly in the start-up years --
will be paid from the U.N. regular budget.
This means that Washington could be assessed up to
one-quarter of the court's budget, even if it does not
accept the treaty. Legal experts and delegates from
around the world have repeatedly said that the court will
be severely limited without the financial, legal and
intelligence-gathering capacities of the United States.
"There is no doubt the court would be much stronger with
the United States than without," said Bruce Broomhall, an
observer with the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
However, he said, it is "out of the question" that
signatories would allow Washington to renegotiate
portions of the treaty.
Foreign delegates say they increasingly doubt whether
Washington can be reassured. Several nations and legal
experts have complained that any protections afforded to
American troops would be more than enough to shield
notorious rulers such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein who
could be accused of war crimes.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse
Helms, North Carolina Republican, has said the treaty will
be "dead on arrival" if the president ever submits it for
Senate ratification.
Mr. Scheffer said that U.S. officials have not yet decided
whether to simply ignore the court, or actively work
against it. "We're not going to make that decision until the
end of next December."
[/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>UN World Court Will
Prosecute American Citizens
By Betsy Pisik
The Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/
12-4-99
U.N. crimes court gets support without US
http://www.washtimes.com/internatl/internatl1.html
The United States has resigned itself to the eventual
creation -- over Washington's objections -- of a U.N.
International Criminal Court to be modeled after war
crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
Even if the United States does not ratify the treaty,
American citizens will be subject to arrest and trial as the
treaty document is now drafted.
International backing for the court became apparent this
week as legal experts gathered at the United Nations to
discuss fine print in a treaty that would establish the world
judicial body.
David Scheffer, assistant secretary of state for war crimes
issues, acknowledged that the court is on track, even in
the United States.
"We expect many nations to ratify by the end of next
year," he told The Washington Times. He also said that
the presence of many U.S. allies on the court would
ratchet up pressure on the United States to join, but
added: "We're never going to sign a treaty we can't
support."
The United States voted against creating the court last
summer, saying that the structure of the tribunal would
not protect American troops from frivolous or politically
motivated indictments and prosecutions.
Although 90 nations have already signed the treaty, only
five have formally ratified the document. Ratification by
60 nations is required for the tribunal to begin working --
something experts expect to happen within the next two
years.
Mr. Scheffer said the U.S. delegation was still hoping to
secure language in the treaty that would provide
protection for Americans -- enough that the United States
could eventually join. He said negotiators were hoping to
make strong provisions for national prosecutions that
would pre-empt the international tribunal's jurisdiction.
They are also hoping to define agreed-upon crimes and
rules of procedure in such a way that U.S. troops would
be highly unlikely to ever be called before the court.
Mr. Scheffer said Secretary of State Madeleine K.
Albright was discussing the tribunal with her counterparts
in numerous foreign ministries.
In voting against the court's creation, the United States
was joined by a curious collection of nations: Iraq, Libya,
Israel, Russia, China and India. But supporters range
from Germany to South Africa to Australia: an
increasingly diverse and powerful bloc of nations that
experts say will provide the political leadership and
financial heft to ease concerns of smaller and more
cautious nations.
All of the European Union has signed the treaty, and Italy
has ratified it. The German government on Tuesday
announced that it would ratify the treaty but did not say
when. France has committed to ratifying it within the next
few months. The governments of Britain, Canada and the
Netherlands say they will complete ratification within the
next year.
The entire European Union is expected to approve the
statute by the end of 2000, said a statement read by a
diplomat from Finland. Finland currently holds the
rotating EU presidency. The European Union has
promised financial and legal assistance to the court, to be
located in The Hague. The court will prosecute allegations
of war crimes, genocide and other crimes against
humanity, and will do so without direct authorization of
the U.N. Security Council, where the United States holds
a veto.
Although it has no enforcement mechanism, all nations --
including the United States -- would be subject to the
international court's jurisdiction, the treaty document
says. This means that all nations will be required to
comply with the court's demands for information,
evidence, witnesses and suspects, the treaty says.
"We cannot recognize the court's competence in bringing
prosecutions against U.S. personnel engaged in official
actions when the U.S. government is not a party," Mr.
Scheffer told the U.N. legal committee in October.
The court will not be retroactive, but the existing tribunals
for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia will eventually be
rolled under its umbrella. The financing of the court has
not been decided, but many nations hope that the bulk of
the court's expenses -- particularly in the start-up years --
will be paid from the U.N. regular budget.
This means that Washington could be assessed up to
one-quarter of the court's budget, even if it does not
accept the treaty. Legal experts and delegates from
around the world have repeatedly said that the court will
be severely limited without the financial, legal and
intelligence-gathering capacities of the United States.
"There is no doubt the court would be much stronger with
the United States than without," said Bruce Broomhall, an
observer with the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
However, he said, it is "out of the question" that
signatories would allow Washington to renegotiate
portions of the treaty.
Foreign delegates say they increasingly doubt whether
Washington can be reassured. Several nations and legal
experts have complained that any protections afforded to
American troops would be more than enough to shield
notorious rulers such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein who
could be accused of war crimes.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse
Helms, North Carolina Republican, has said the treaty will
be "dead on arrival" if the president ever submits it for
Senate ratification.
Mr. Scheffer said that U.S. officials have not yet decided
whether to simply ignore the court, or actively work
against it. "We're not going to make that decision until the
end of next December."
[/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!