Comments on: The International Criminal Court as theater

By: Michael B

Michael B — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Minh-Duc, yes, was aware of that, the Head Heeb link was simply for some broader perspective if people are interested. The other two pieces comment on the ICC itself. Btw, like your blog, have been reading it now for a couple months. Have a good weekend!

By: Minh-Duc

Minh-Duc — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Michael,

The ICC is different from the ICJ, they are two entirely different entities. In the ICJ, countries are either plaintiff or defendant, not people. Furthermore, it is more like arbitration since both countries have to consent to the procedure.

By: Michael B

Michael B — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Related info. Jonathan Edelstein at The Head Heeb, very knowledgeable in this area, has recently posted his top ten courts. Also, a brief but intriguing backgrounder on the ICC, and a more extensive article by the same author which provides more background and elaborates on the principle of consent, among other aspects of the ICC.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

What concerns me most about the ICC is that such courts from Nuremburg to the present give me the impression that they’re making it up as they go along. When you combine this with the general lack of accountability of courts, and the possibility that the decisions of such courts could have the force of constitutional law in the United States (I recognize that there’s some ambiguity in this), what mischief could such a court foment?

It seems to me that the lesson here is the same as the one in the movie War Games: the only way to win is not to play.

By: Dymphna

Dymphna — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Laws grow out of both abstract principles and local exigencies…they don’t work on an international level any more than politics does.

In fact, they barely work on a national one, even in a federated conglomerate like ours.

I think what you’re saying is that the passing of laws must be preceded by consent –the vote– and followed up by force — the police — to have any real meaning.

International law is a contradiction in terms. If not that, then it’s an empty set. Meaningless except for puffery and positioning.