Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Eientei on June 03, 2007, 03:14:37 AM
-
Seeing as NS is a nation simulator with a great focus on diplomacy, the issue of the sovereignty of states in real life seems appropriate to bring up. The founding of the International Criminal Court and other international institutions raises the level of multilateral activity among the world states. That might promote peace and prosperity (if it doesn't actually cause conflict instead, because who knows.)
However, some say it cripples the idea and the practice of national sovereignty. It's been the basis of international relations since the 1600's, but are times changing? The Bush Administration "unsigned" the Rome Statute creating the ICC on the grounds that foreigners would be able to bring Americans to a court in Europe, a violation of US sovereignty.
What do you think of it? Should states have more sovereignty at the expense of peace or less sovereignty, breaking down the established system? Or is the whole argument just screwed up in itself?
-
yes, i don't even understand. But anyway, i suppose that's how you face it. In case of what you say, a portuguese that committed a crime in USA can be trialed in his motherland, it's called extradition. The other way is against of most of the laws of the countries. I say the latest polemic one about that Russian that is accused by the brittish government of poisoning that ex-KGB, and that they want to trial him in UK, but Russia doesn't allow that.
At some sort, i think he should be trialed in UK since he committed the crime in UK, he was facing brittish own sovereignty when he committed the crime, so what you said can come around too.
-
I would say that there should be no problem with the main classes of offenses; genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. But the (as yet) undefined offense of crimes of aggression could be a sticking point. I know I wouldn't want to sign a contract before the other party had even decided what to include in the document. I'd want to see it written in stone first, so to speak.
As far as whether such a thing cripples sovereignty, certainly it could, if taken too far. But when it focuses exclusively on things like extreme violations of human rights (such as torture, genocide) rather than trying to nitpick the grayer areas where various countries may not agree, then I can't see it conflicting with sovereign interests in countries where such things are considered wrong.
-
As far as whether such a thing cripples sovereignty, certainly it could, if taken too far. But when it focuses exclusively on things like extreme violations of human rights (such as torture, genocide) rather than trying to nitpick the grayer areas where various countries may not agree, then I can't see it conflicting with sovereign interests in countries where such things are considered wrong.
In the case of the ICC, maybe I should say it directly affects jurisdiction, which may indirectly cripple sovereignty. It's still not terribly clear, but then, neither is John Bolton's paper in which he takes a giant leak on the whole idea of the ICC.
-
Well, as politics goes, I'm sure there are lots of ramifications that those of us not in the field wouldn't even be remotely aware of. Eientei, I'm not familiar with the John Bolton paper - do you happen to have a link where I could find information on it?
-
It's "The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America's Perspective" at
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?64+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+167+(Winter+2001) (http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?64+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+167+(Winter+2001))
He makes a few points, but I think Bolton has an extreme position on the issue.
-
It is, as I believe may have already been noted, the classic trade off between freedom and security. I for one am an avid internationalist. I believe that by far one of the best ways to ensure a true and lasting peace is to breed conditions on the international stage in which countries are mutually dependent on one another such that to act against another nation is to harm themselves as well. As such, I do not object to the ICC. As far as I'm concerned, if the US government ever to go off and commit one of the crimes it covers there's no reason that we shouldn't be held as accountable as anyone else and made to take responsibility.
-
Thank you very much for that link, Eientei. I haven't completely finished reading the paper, but sections do imply that the vagueness of the offenses is a hindrance. Bolton uses examples of past occurences for which the US could technically be retroactively found guilty of war crimes under the current wording, such as the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. Given the aggressive and maverick nature of the Bush administration's actions internationally, I can certainly why they would be all the more cautious about such a thing. It seems to validate my earlier supposition that the open-endedness of the wording as a major concern, particularly since it would assert automatic jurisdiction.
And speaking of automatic jurisdiction, the fact that it would hold accountable all nations, not only those who agree to be bound by it, means that it could most certainly intrude upon the sovereignty of certain countries where such offenses are practiced by the governments. But should that take precedence over an attempt to reduce such offenses? Personally, in a broad sense, I think not.
(From Bolton's paper) Because parties to the ICC may refer alleged crimes to the prosecutor, we can virtually guarantee that some will, from the very outset, seek to use the court for political purposes.
This is a given in any political arena, due to the nature of politics and politicians, and is a large reason behind many failures of attempts to promote worldwide peace. It is certainly an important matter of concern when it involves the giving up of a certain amount of control to another body of people. The giving of power to fallible human beings who may not necessarily wield it solely for the purpose of the greater good can make for dangerous waters. It is a risk on a national as well as an international scale.
Aside from the ICC, which is not ideal in its present state (if anything truly ever is), I feel that sovereignty, like human rights, should be nurtured, but when the two conflict, precedence should not be given to sovereignty over basic human rights.
-
As a peace loving europeean and anti-corporationalist, this part cathed my eyes very quickly:
"This is but one of many reasons why the Statute of Rome10 is harmful to the national interests of the United States, is unsound foreign policy, and is a threat to the independence and flexibility that America's military forces need to defend U.S. national interests around the world."
Do anyone else see the incoherency and underlying threat of the, by me, boldened sub sentence?
Especially the last part of expressing an arrogant posture of using military force to eliminate competition towards american companies regardless if theat competition comes from local, FOREIGN populations, foreign governments or foreign companies.
Not to even mention parts of the US legislation coded the "patriot act" that actually tries to place US jurisdiction over EVERYONE and tries to seize the right to make completely Ad Hoc arrests of ANYONE, ANYWHERE that fulfils certain criteria determined by the US govt. And as if that wasn't enough, it also "allows" the US state to hold people arrested under such pretext for indefinite time without trial and no guarantee against US govt. sanctioned torture. This if anything makes his "vagueness" resistance moot beyond doubt.
-
My input shall be brief: nationalism is passé, a unified world government would solve this problem as well.
KR: Creepy...
-
I never even knew "national interest" was still politically correct.
And that's all I'm saying in this thread.
-
Thank you very much for that link, Eientei. I haven't completely finished reading the paper, but sections do imply that the vagueness of the offenses is a hindrance. Bolton uses examples of past occurences for which the US could technically be retroactively found guilty of war crimes under the current wording, such as the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. Given the aggressive and maverick nature of the Bush administration's actions internationally, I can certainly why they would be all the more cautious about such a thing. It seems to validate my earlier supposition that the open-endedness of the wording as a major concern, particularly since it would assert automatic jurisdiction.
And speaking of automatic jurisdiction, the fact that it would hold accountable all nations, not only those who agree to be bound by it, means that it could most certainly intrude upon the sovereignty of certain countries where such offenses are practiced by the governments. But should that take precedence over an attempt to reduce such offenses? Personally, in a broad sense, I think not.
(From Bolton's paper) Because parties to the ICC may refer alleged crimes to the prosecutor, we can virtually guarantee that some will, from the very outset, seek to use the court for political purposes.
This is a given in any political arena, due to the nature of politics and politicians, and is a large reason behind many failures of attempts to promote worldwide peace. It is certainly an important matter of concern when it involves the giving up of a certain amount of control to another body of people. The giving of power to fallible human beings who may not necessarily wield it solely for the purpose of the greater good can make for dangerous waters. It is a risk on a national as well as an international scale.
Aside from the ICC, which is not ideal in its present state (if anything truly ever is), I feel that sovereignty, like human rights, should be nurtured, but when the two conflict, precedence should not be given to sovereignty over basic human rights.
The ICC certainly needs time to establish itself, as it's a very young institution. The principle of retroactively charging people for crimes is one I also have a problem with, though I think most of the offenses the ICC deals with are covered by many different treaties, conventions and in a very general way by the UN Charter itself.
I wouldn't worry too much about politically-motivitated charges brought against the US, at least. It would be hard to imagine a prosecutor calling, say, Donald Rumsfeld to court and expecting the US to send him. The United States has enough influence to be able to threaten to pull out of the ICC, or if it were still not a member of the Rome Statute, to threaten to cut off parts of its UN funding and twist the arm of the court, and American lawyers would probably be able to make a case for political motives in the charge anyway. Also, if the US were to join the Rome Statute, it would be able to continue shaping the court for its own purposes, which is pretty impossible to do as an outsider. That's why President Clinton signed the statute, even though he knew Congress would never ratify it. Of course, these points don't apply to smaller states that don't have the benefit of American power and influence.
I agree that sovereignty shouldn't take precedence over human rights. However, I think the ICC will be limited, at least for a while, by political realities - i.e. American, Chinese or Russian politicians or high officials might have committed crimes against humanity, but they won't be brought before the ICC because their countries are influential enough to be able to ignore the charge and argue against it without too many consequences.
-
The ICC certainly needs time to establish itself, as it's a very young institution...
...Also, if the US were to join the Rome Statute, it would be able to continue shaping the court for its own purposes, which is pretty impossible to do as an outsider. That's why President Clinton signed the statute, even though he knew Congress would never ratify it.
That's precisely what I was thinking as I was reading. Especially since Clinton signed it with the provision that changes would be made. I'm personally not of the opinion that pulling out of it altogether was the best course of action. But it also doesn't surprise me, given the maverick nature of this current administration. I'll be curious to see what the next administration decides.
I wouldn't worry too much about politically-motivitated charges brought against the US, at least. It would be hard to imagine a prosecutor calling, say, Donald Rumsfeld to court and expecting the US to send him. The United States has enough influence to be able to threaten to pull out of the ICC, or if it were still not a member of the Rome Statute, to threaten to cut off parts of its UN funding and twist the arm of the court, and American lawyers would probably be able to make a case for political motives in the charge anyway.
You may very well be right. I think the current administration, though, much prefers not to have to answer to anyone on anything, since at the very least, it adds complication in doing whatever it is that they're trying to do. Given the fact that Bush has shown such a tendency to try to steer the American people's attention away from things that they might protest, having to answer to the ICC, even if the risk of repercussion is nil, would still bring more attention to that which they're trying to keep quiet.
"This is but one of many reasons why the Statute of Rome10 is harmful to the national interests of the United States, is unsound foreign policy, and is a threat to the independence and flexibility that America's military forces need to defend U.S. national interests around the world."
Do anyone else see the incoherency and underlying threat of the, by me, boldened sub sentence?
Absolutely I do. It clearly implies that the US government does not want its international freedoms reduced. The use of the term "defend U.S. national interests" is political double-talk, because politicians do of course stretch the definition of "defense" when it suits their political goals. Believe me when I say that I do not like that statement any more than you do.
As for the Patriot Act, I dislike that as well - it gives the government too much power and too little accountability, in my opinon.
I do not subscribe to the theory that "might makes right", and the current administration in the US seems to lean toward that too heavily for my tastes.
I apologize to Eientei - it seems I'm concentrating more heavily on the US government's decision toward the ICC rather than the original question, which was whether multilateralism intrudes too far upon sovereignty in general.
-
I also appologizes for leading the topic astray.
My position on sovereignity vs multilateralism I belive that the ICC can definitely be a step in a good direction.
Also, I am of the oppinion that the nation state as a cultural construction has passed it's best-before date and the time has come for starting to work towards a united planet. That unification can only come from education and from us in the technologically rich western world to help those not as well off to reach our standards with a minimal waste of resources. A second, maybe even more important issue is that individual human rights has to be enforced, against the will of states if nessessary and, even more important, enforced above any interests of multinational corporations.
-
Certainly sovereignty is important - nations must have the ability to rule themselves. And nationalism in its simplest sense is important in that a government must see to its own people first. The question is a matter of degree. What one nation does often affects other nations, whether only its nearest neighbors or those on the other side of the world, and so it behooves any responsible government to take such things into consideration in planning its actions.
Morality, in large part, is subjective to the individual culture. The drinking of alcohol might be illegal in one, and not considered immoral in another. So such things must be left to the individual nation to decide. But there are also the more extreme issues that are viewed in virtually the same way all over the world, such as those the ICC addresses; genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression against other nations.
Does a group of more powerful nations have the right to force the smaller ones to comply with world sentiment? The League of Nations was born in a time when rulers realized that things had gotten out of hand to the point where the actions of a nation were potentially endangering others, and in some ways, ALL nations.
Multilateralism is crucial on some issues. I doubt that anyone would argue that. In those cases, I do believe that sovereignty must be compromised, if necessary, in order to secure the safety of the world and its people.
-
A thing that puzzles me in this debate is the following: in a present and a near future of increasing interdependence, all international organizations assuming responsibilities and mandates that affect our life in different aspects and degrees by influencing the direct jurisdiction of nation-states, it would seem logic that these institutions operate according to a principle that is, up to this moment, the best form of representativity that mankind has managed to set-up - that of democracy. Such a democratic and transparent guiding principle what international decision-making is concerend would be a must if these global factors are to play a positive part in ensuring a climate of peace and security on the international scene. But, as far as I can see, we are moving on to a higher level, while we still have not managed to cover a satisfying degree of democratic management as far as diverse issues regarding the life of nation-states are concerned, and there are plenty of examples in the recent history. The UN as the international forum of policy-making or the ICC as an international gremium of world justice are still rather distant succeses as far as I can see.
If you look at human history, internationalsim, globalism or multiculturalism were never dialogues between equals, but rather have been enacted in the name of those identified as 'vicitims' or 'disadvantaged' (real or made-up), and the same policies have been later blamed specifically on the same. Instead of instating a balance, the result was that of pushing such groups of individuals or states in a marginal position on the international stage and of the policy-making process while the dominant continued on monopolizing the big-decisions for their own interests, and relied on 'approved' or 'recognized' interlocutors for political horse-trading on behalf of groups or peoples they were not representative of.
On the other hand, the positive result of the above was the emergence of a vibrant civil society, concerned with progressive policies, scanning and criticising the big-scene and pushing decision factors to place more and more of the national or international policy-making in the unpredictable but fair hands of democratic process.
I sometimes have the impression that the rather simplistic but easy-to-understand situation prior to the big changes of the '90s has given way to a context very hard or almost impossible to oversee and manage, and that most of the international policies follow blind trails. I wonder if we are indeed heading for chaos. Are we really replacing the rule of force with the rule of law, or is it just a cosy game where, in fact, the involved partners are by far not abiding by the same principles?
-
The International Criminal Court is a good start. It is not viable in its current form and MUST be changed at some point, but it is a good start.
Unfortunately, though I support US entry into it, my view on Constitutional law would say that it is unconstitutional for the United States to accept the jurisdiction of anything, government, court, or legislature, as having full jurisdiction over the United States, and for the United States to join the ICC would require a Constitutional Amendment, as would the United States participating in a world government or strengthened United Nations. It is unconstitutional for Congress to give up the sovereignty of the United States without the consent of the states in the form of a Constitutional amendment, requring 3/4 of the states to approve. Granted, this would not be impossible, but how the hell are we to get thirty-eight out of fifty states to agree to such a thing? Unlikely, in my opinion.
Also, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has established, as of 1812, that the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners in the territories or under the authority of the United States, and spying on Americans without a warrant, well, I just have this to say:
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that this applies to wiretapping and spying.
But, I digress.
-
What about the parts that tries to place foreign nationals IN THEIR OWN NATIONS under it's jurisdiction then?
I'd say that's extremely close to a declaration of war against the whole world.
-
Unconstitutional? The President has the constitutionally stated power to form treaties with the advise and approval of two-thirds of those members of the Senate present at the time. What's more, foreign policy is also constitutionally the domain of the federal government alone. There's nothing unconstitutional about it that I can see.
Anyway, perhaps one day in the future, we will see the federal semi-presidential republic that is the United Nations of Earth coexisting peacefully with the Holy See of Vatican City. One can hope...
-
Unfortunately, though I support US entry into it, my view on Constitutional law would say that it is unconstitutional for the United States to accept the jurisdiction of anything, government, court, or legislature, as having full jurisdiction over the United States, and for the United States to join the ICC would require a Constitutional Amendment, as would the United States participating in a world government or strengthened United Nations. It is unconstitutional for Congress to give up the sovereignty of the United States without the consent of the states in the form of a Constitutional amendment, requring 3/4 of the states to approve. Granted, this would not be impossible, but how the hell are we to get thirty-eight out of fifty states to agree to such a thing? Unlikely, in my opinion.
Whenever the United States signs a treaty or a convention, it generally adds an "understanding" to its signature, explaining that the United States Constitution takes precedent over the treaty in any cases that the two might conflict. The US has always had that exception to cover its sovereignty. One of the problems with the ICC is that the treaty establishing it forbids any reservations or understandings as an addition to any state's signature. President Clinton signed the Statue back when it was up for consideration anyway, and I think the US should have stayed with it in order to have influence on the shaping of the court.
What about the parts that tries to place foreign nationals IN THEIR OWN NATIONS under it's jurisdiction then?
I'd say that's extremely close to a declaration of war against the whole world.
Those parts are really the essence of the ICC. Take Ratko Mladic, a Bosnian Serb general charged with crimes against humanity by the international tribunal dealing with crimes committed during the former Yugoslavia civil war. He's believed to be in Serbia and is basically protected from facing any court of law. Since the ICC is designed to charge people believed to have committed great crimes against humanity, genocide and the like, it would be pointless if the court didn't give itself jurisdiction over people like Mladic (a different, temporary court has charged Mladic, but the idea is the same.) That's where the ICC runs headfirst into sovereignty issues, though. The actual process of extradition is a problem if the state is unwilling to give up the person charged, but that's something for the international lawyers, ambassadors, etc to work out.
-
What about the parts that tries to place foreign nationals IN THEIR OWN NATIONS under it's jurisdiction then?
I'd say that's extremely close to a declaration of war against the whole world.
Those parts are really the essence of the ICC. Take Ratko Mladic, a Bosnian Serb general charged with crimes against humanity by the international tribunal dealing with crimes committed during the former Yugoslavia civil war. He's believed to be in Serbia and is basically protected from facing any court of law. Since the ICC is designed to charge people believed to have committed great crimes against humanity, genocide and the like, it would be pointless if the court didn't give itself jurisdiction over people like Mladic (a different, temporary court has charged Mladic, but the idea is the same.) That's where the ICC runs headfirst into sovereignty issues, though. The actual process of extradition is a problem if the state is unwilling to give up the person charged, but that's something for the international lawyers, ambassadors, etc to work out.
Errrmm.. I think I should have clarified myself, that sentence was NOT referring to the ICC but to the US "patriot act"
-
What about the parts that tries to place foreign nationals IN THEIR OWN NATIONS under it's jurisdiction then?
I'd say that's extremely close to a declaration of war against the whole world.
Those parts are really the essence of the ICC. Take Ratko Mladic, a Bosnian Serb general charged with crimes against humanity by the international tribunal dealing with crimes committed during the former Yugoslavia civil war. He's believed to be in Serbia and is basically protected from facing any court of law. Since the ICC is designed to charge people believed to have committed great crimes against humanity, genocide and the like, it would be pointless if the court didn't give itself jurisdiction over people like Mladic (a different, temporary court has charged Mladic, but the idea is the same.) That's where the ICC runs headfirst into sovereignty issues, though. The actual process of extradition is a problem if the state is unwilling to give up the person charged, but that's something for the international lawyers, ambassadors, etc to work out.
Errrmm.. I think I should have clarified myself, that sentence was NOT referring to the ICC but to the US "patriot act"
Oh, sorry. Yeah, the Patriot Act is pretty much a stain on the country in almost all its aspects. I guess there's a real difference between the two documents in that sense - the Patriot Act is a unilateral document that more or less disregards international standards that the US has agreed upon over the decades, while the ICC is a court with at least some operating procedure and relies on a consensus among the nations.
-
all pro-globalisation here?
-
Truthfully, I don't view globalization as something that one can be for or against. Actually, that's not terribly accurate. What I mean is that it doesn't matter whether one is in favor of it or not. It's a fact of life - it's happening whether anyone wants it or not. It has its advantages and disadvantages, and one can only hope that the good will outweigh the bad in the end.