03-28-2003, 07:28 PM
It is not built on the proper foundation.
Until there is a single and universally agree international Constitution and codification of laws, until there is a single international legal authority that is accepted by all nations, and until there is a single international method for ensuring due process of law, the ICC will remain a political tool, and a tool used to attempt an international version of California 'deep pockets' legisltion. In other words, the Miranda ruling does not yet apply in every nation on the globe, as a minor example.
The UN Charter is not such a foundation document, it was a charter created by a select group of nations whose aim was to prevent World War III, and whose aims included that sovereign nations have a structure and a method to resolve differences short of war, and to promote greater peace and prosperity among the family of nations: sovereign nations. It was not crafted to supercede the authority of its members as regards their internal affairs, or their sovereignty. Had that been the intent, I doubt very much that the U.S. would have signed it, nor any of the other powers involved.
Until every nation on the globe subordinates its sovereignty, and its ability to craft the laws for its own people's best needs as they see them, the ICC will remain an idea whose practical application as a legitimate court is as full of holes as Swiss Cheese.
Or do you believe that the laws of Iran regarding the status of women is the international standard that all should strive for? Do you believe that the Church shall be the final arbiter of the Law, as in the sovereign nation of Iran? Or that the people are the property of the State, per the Communist model?
The laws on this planet are unequal, are different, and are tailored within each nation to meet the needs of its population 'writ large', either via the open and changeable process of the representative governments, or in the 'law by decree' of more autocratic nations.
"International Law" is a matter of treaty and negotiation between nations, and has to date gotten incredibly uneven enforcement. It is also, at it best, a subset of international politics. At worse, it is a waste of time.
Until there is a single and universally agree international Constitution and codification of laws, until there is a single international legal authority that is accepted by all nations, and until there is a single international method for ensuring due process of law, the ICC will remain a political tool, and a tool used to attempt an international version of California 'deep pockets' legisltion. In other words, the Miranda ruling does not yet apply in every nation on the globe, as a minor example.
The UN Charter is not such a foundation document, it was a charter created by a select group of nations whose aim was to prevent World War III, and whose aims included that sovereign nations have a structure and a method to resolve differences short of war, and to promote greater peace and prosperity among the family of nations: sovereign nations. It was not crafted to supercede the authority of its members as regards their internal affairs, or their sovereignty. Had that been the intent, I doubt very much that the U.S. would have signed it, nor any of the other powers involved.
Until every nation on the globe subordinates its sovereignty, and its ability to craft the laws for its own people's best needs as they see them, the ICC will remain an idea whose practical application as a legitimate court is as full of holes as Swiss Cheese.
Or do you believe that the laws of Iran regarding the status of women is the international standard that all should strive for? Do you believe that the Church shall be the final arbiter of the Law, as in the sovereign nation of Iran? Or that the people are the property of the State, per the Communist model?
The laws on this planet are unequal, are different, and are tailored within each nation to meet the needs of its population 'writ large', either via the open and changeable process of the representative governments, or in the 'law by decree' of more autocratic nations.
"International Law" is a matter of treaty and negotiation between nations, and has to date gotten incredibly uneven enforcement. It is also, at it best, a subset of international politics. At worse, it is a waste of time.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete