It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


World leaders could face prosecution for ‘state aggression’

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:48 PM
June 1, 2010

World leaders could face prosecution for ‘state aggression’

David Charter


World leaders could face prosecution for acts of state aggression — potentially including the invasion of Iraq — under calls for the International Criminal Court to extend its powers.

Britain and the US are among nations wary of such a move. The change would make “manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations” an indictable offence at the court, which currently prosecutes those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. There are fears that the move could intensely politicise the work of the fledgeling ICC in The Hague, making it harder for the court to gain the international recognition and confidence it needs.

The issue is expected to dominate a gathering in Kampala of delegates from most of the 111 signatories to the ICC, to review its working practices eight years after it was founded. There were also calls yesterday for universal acceptance of the ICC. Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, three — the US, China and Russia — are yet to endorse the court.

Adding the crime of state aggression to the ICC’s remit “would be a significant step forward in the development of international law and an important extension of the court’s jurisdiction”, said Christian Wenaweser, president of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC, meeting in the Ugandan capital.

He added that the Security Council should be the first body to determine whether state aggression had taken place. Some pressure groups think that this would compromise the court’s independence. While the definition of what constitutes an act of aggression has been hotly contested, the key is who decides when the criteria are met.Human Rights Watch said that it had “long opposed control of any crime within the court’s jurisdiction by external bodies because it would undermine the ICC’s judicial independence”.

Harold Koh, of the US State Department, argued that widening the court’s remit “could divert the ICC from its core mission and politicise this young institution”. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said Britain thought it too soon for the ICC to expand its role but that if this happened the assessment of acts of aggression should be made by the Security Council.

The ICC was set up as a court of last resort, acting when national courts cannot or fail to do so, in issues of grave international concern. Only two trials have started, with defendants from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and a third trial to start next month. Omar al-Bashir, sworn in again last week as President of Sudan, was indicted in 2008.

Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, opened the summit yesterday, urging all states to sign up and welcoming the presence of an observer from the US. “Under the leadership of President Obama, I understand the United States is very seriously reviewing all of its policies and I do hope the US will join the ICC as soon as possible,” he said.

In session

— The International Criminal Court, the first permanent main court to try individuals for human rights violations, came into force in 2002. It is recognized by 111 nations but not the United States, Russia or China

— The court has the power to try cases if the crime was committed within the territory of a member state or if the UN Security Council refers the case to the court

— In 2005 the Security Council voted to put war crimes cases in Darfur to the ICC for the first time

— The Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga became the first person to be tried by the ICC, in January last year, charged with conscripting child soldiers. The case continues.

Who's first? Bush Jr. & Sr, Obama, Netanyahu, and ??

Well if this passed, and enforced welcome to the NWO. No I don't think that it will be recognized by the US, Russia and China.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:58 PM
If the NWO calls for the imprisonment of war criminals it can't be as bad as we have all thought. Unless they turn out letting the real criminals go and imprison their political opponents.

I would rather just have the streamlined and anyone that commits a legitimate international crime be sent to ICC.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:16 PM
This is good news for anyone who thinks the UN is ineffective. If the ICC can be used to enforce the UN Charter, then we are liable to see the creation of a world-police that can deal with crimes against humanity without resorting to war and invasion a la Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. This would make the UN's activities less disruptive in those states that collaborate with it.

To NWO haters: The global government is not going away. Accept that it is remaining, and be glad that its enforcement policy is becoming more legalistic and constitutional instead of slipshod and martial.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

I think expansion of ICC powers is a good idea. And I certainly hope more countries get on board.

Recent issues like South vs North Korea, and Israel vs The rest of the Middle East clearly need some kind of an independent legal tribunal they can access to mediate and try any issues they may have with eachother.

US courts currently fill this role for the most part. But national law always has it's limits and countries outside the US can't reasonably expect the US to change it's laws or the way it handles it's courts for our benefit.

The ICC, regardless of any concerns over the NWO is definitely a good thing for the world, needs more powers and will become a necessary tool for tackling global crimes like those we've seen committed by Goldman Sachs.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:31 PM
One of the reasons the US won't sign is the fact that the ongoing illegal occupation of Native American lands would come under the purview of the ICC. The tribes were promised their eventual freedom "when they were ready" but the US treats them as if they owned them, making decisions and spending the tribes' money without consulting them, negotiating sweetheart deals with energy companies without any input from tribal leadership.

I would welcome the ICC if it helped get us our freedom back from the United States.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by apacheman

Yes, the ICC would almost certainly get tangled up in removing the hidden Apartheid regimes of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico et cetera. The trend from the 20th century onwards has been towards decolonization, but so far we have only decolonized those territories that we Westerners do not consider an integral part of our state (with the exception of Algeria). Anti-Apartheid is the second stage of decolonization, which the West has resisted for decades but is inevitable; the majority of the UNGA is made up of anti-imperial states, itching to be free from the yoke of tyranny.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:07 PM
How precious
As if any of the last three would sign it! China, Russia and the US, three pea's in a pod.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:40 PM
here you can see the list of judges from the ICC :

They are elected by member countries and serve a 9 years term .

The president is currently South Korean , elected by his fellow judges

I can see how it can be a problem for some leaders , as the multicultural background will always involve different interests and different views

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:02 PM
I can imagine now , most important , present or ex world leaders in the same luxury cell

This is when they listen a story of Bush

Or at Christmas

Playing charade

Arguing on who should clean the cell

Or fighting over food

Sorry for the off topic guys , i just couldn't help it , these videos are some of the most funniest things i've ever seen

[edit on 7-6-2010 by charlie_the_loafer]

[edit on 7-6-2010 by charlie_the_loafer]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:52 PM
This concept is a farce IMO.

This is nothing but a thinly disguised attack on the sovereignty of individual nations.

What world leader would sign up for this not knowing if the next world ecvent might put himself in jeopardy?

And how would this not end up being a politically motivated as the rest of the UN has become?

Oh, and if some think this could be used to go after Bush retroactively - which BTW violates the U.S. constitution - why not a show trial for any or every dictator that has ever lived?

[edit on 6/7/2010 by centurion1211]

new topics

top topics


log in