World Courts?

Is a thousand squabbling, uncooperative, distrustful, and above all armed, countries really any better?

I''ve often found it disturbing and downright frightening. The courts in particular. I want to know what they''re jurisdiction would be. And above all, what will the definition of "justice" be?

If I was stopped for speeding, who would handle it? Or what if I seriously injured or killed someone in self defense? In the US, I would probably go free. But if my trial was by a world jury?

I''ll admit I''m a nationalist, a culturalist, and have never liked the idea of world government. That may effect my opinion, but I firmly believe such things should be left to individual nations. One world government doesn''t mean one world culture.

Sorry if thisn''t particulary coherent or anything but I''ve been looking at code all night.

You know you''re a programmer when your computer is like family. When it''s more like a lover, you need help.

The larger a democracy becomes, the less democratic it becomes

Yes, the larger a democracy becomes the less democratic, until at some point it's no longer a democracy at all.

As far as world courts go, I seriously doubt they'll ever handle traffic cases. Too much work!

World courts will handle cases that don't fall under local or regional jurisdictions. That means cases involving national disputes and violations of global standards by heads of state (like Milosovich for example). These courts will only have as much power as the nations that join in give them.

Further, international courts already exist and have for some time. What is happening now is that the world is becoming a smaller place, and so the role of these courts is changing. The lable of these courts is changing too for various reasons. While I'm certain a lot of people would prefer the term "world court" to refer to Olympic Basketball or Tennis, it's mostly just a renaming of what used to be known as international courts because 'world court' sounds more ominous.

There are also trade courts being set up - often without any sort of democratic input and those courts will likely have a greater direct impact on the lives of everyday people than the world court will - that's why not much is said about them in the mainstream press - "ignorance is bliss".


[edited by - lessbread on April 12, 2002 5:24:23 AM]

Ah, I wouldn''t it. It would probably just be a UN with more power.

-Maarten Leeuwrik

---

Follower of the NLS
(New Lounge Standards)

The ICC claims jurisdiction over every American citizen whether we ratify the treaty or not. It''s accountable to no one, not even the UN. There are no appeals.

This court will be nothing more than a tool for political witchhunting. It defines crimes against humanity as vaguely as acts of ''aggression'' and plans to include wording such as damage to ''mental health''.

The proceedings spit in the face of the Bill of Rights protections, no trial by jury, no possibility of bail, no accountability of judges or prosecuters, and, arguably, no presumption of innocence.

This should not be confused with the world court, that purpose is to try disputes between countries. This court goes after individual citizens.


Mike

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederick Bastiat, The Law

Well then, there is but one thing I can say about that: it proves that Americans do not own the world ^_^

The ICC lives and dies by the support of the world itself. If an American did something "evil", and the ICC condems him, well. Sure, Americans might not agree with it (No jury! No bail!), but there is little choice if the EU and Japan and Australia and Asia and the Middle East still support the ICC. America will just have to agree with it (or face a terrible boycot).

On the other hand, if someone is condemnded ''cause of a witchhunt, the American government might decide that it is worth it to make a stand. And if it is really worth it (terrible justice against that person), other countries would probably either take a neutral stance, or agree with the simple solution of letting the US do the trial themselfs.

-Maarten Leeuwrik

---

Follower of the NLS
(New Lounge Standards)

I always found it amusing (and appropriate) that, in Civilization II, you couldn''t get the United Nations Wonder until you had discovered Communism. At least Ol'' Sid got it dead on.

Dave Mark
President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm Development
"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

quote:

---

Original post by Ronin_54
Well then, there is but one thing I can say about that: it proves that Americans do not own the world ^_^

The ICC lives and dies by the support of the world itself. If an American did something "evil", and the ICC condems him, well. Sure, Americans might not agree with it (No jury! No bail!), but there is little choice if the EU and Japan and Australia and Asia and the Middle East still support the ICC. America will just have to agree with it (or face a terrible boycot).

On the other hand, if someone is condemnded ''cause of a witchhunt, the American government might decide that it is worth it to make a stand. And if it is really worth it (terrible justice against that person), other countries would probably either take a neutral stance, or agree with the simple solution of letting the US do the trial themselfs.

---

Well, you added credibility to the idea that this is little more than an attack on the US because of jealousy, or whatever. Just because you belong to some insignificant country with no real power that, for whatever reason, doens''t believe people accused of crimes should have a trial of peers; a trial of peers being the last resort against government abuse.

Sanctions have already been proposed for every country that ratifed the treaty. I''m proud that the US is standing up for country sovreinity, and rights of those accused of crimes. I''m proud the US, in this case, is doing what governmnets should do - protect it''s citizens from outside forces.

Frankly I could care less about hypothetical circumstances that may allow the US to stop political games using innocent people as pawns. There is potential to ruin the lives of innocent people over political games using them as pawns. There is little to nothing their governmnet can do to protect them. Hypotheticals claiming this may not happen are pointless.


Mike

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederick Bastiat, The Law

Bush is going to withdraw Clintons signature from that treaty, first time in American history. It''s all legal since the senate didn''t ratify it. If the US doesn''t ratify then we get the best of both worlds. We can use the court when we want and prevent some trials with our veto power on the security council. Its a dumb idea anyway. It isn''t that hard to get the UN to set up a special court to try war crimes. With a permanate court you will get a bunch of people looking to justify their existance. Give someone a hammer and everything turns into a nail.

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.
--EM Cioran

Opere Citato

Erm...

1) The Netherlands isn''t quite as insignificant as you might think ^_^

2) Trial of peers to prevent Government abuse...? Erm... For the record, around here, judges are not part of the government. They represent an external, objective third party between the people and the government.

And the International Courts wouldn''t go about to judge someone ''cause he stole a bag of chips from a local supermarket. It''s about bigger cases. The biggest advantage it has, is that when someone commits a serious crime (ie: assasinate a head of state?), he (or she) can no longer flee to another country. Even though that country might not agree with the international court, he could still be brought to trial. Basicly, you make sure that criminals can no longer run to other countries.

And, as for jealousy against the US: right now, the US comes up with new reasons almost every single day for me not to envy them Okay, the EU aint everything. We don''t do things like attacking other countries just like that, but America has the power to get an army anywhere within a few days. I just find it amusing that America uses all the power it has, just to claim "We are the World Leaders!!!" and take revenge on other countries when someone attacks them. They don''t use their power to support their claim "We are the World Leaders!!!" and... for example, try to calm the situation in the middle east.

Nah, I don''t envy the US ^_^

-Maarten Leeuwrik

---

Follower of the NLS
(New Lounge Standards)

quote:

---

1) The Netherlands isn''t quite as insignificant as you might think ^_^

---

Of course! That''s the place you''d go if you wanted to smoke pot.

(Okay, so my last post was a joke... don''t take offense, there are plenty of bad things about america.)

The ICC as it is (And explained by Ventinari) too vague and draconian. Until that is changed, I say this to the ICC (In latin) Ascendo Tuum! (Up Yours)

This whole thing really bothers me, and I''m glad that the US is balking. This is one of the few times I''m happy we are as arrogant as we are. Setting up international trials for specific cases seems okay, but creating a permanent establishment will definitely lead to...

quote:

---

Original post by GKW Give someone a hammer and everything turns into a nail.

---

quote:

---

Original post by Ronin_54
1) The Netherlands isn''t quite as insignificant as you might think ^_^

---

Sure, the Netherlands is important because...well I can''t think of a reason actually.

quote:

---

2) Trial of peers to prevent Government abuse...? Erm... For the record, around here, judges are not part of the government. They represent an external, objective third party between the people and the government.

---

Really, who pays their saleries? Are they elected or apointed? What about their political beliefs? Do they believe in harsh punishments or rehabilitary measures? Will they always vote to uphold controversial laws if guilt is proven? etc. Sorry, unbiased judges don''t exist anywhere.

The advantage of a jury is that we have 12 people from a variety of backgrounds that decide on many things. Whether someone is guilty of a crime. Whether someone deserves to be punished for that crime. And, most importantly, whether it should be a crime or not (for example, marijuana smoking in California for medicinal purposes should be an interesting play of juries; if you don''t know, California law permits it and federal law does not).

quote:

---

The biggest advantage it has, is that when someone commits a serious crime (ie: assasinate a head of state?), he (or she) can no longer flee to another country. Even though that country might not agree with the international court, he could still be brought to trial. Basicly, you make sure that criminals can no longer run to other countries.

---

No, completely wrong. If a US citizen commits what the ICC declares a crime, and is in the US, the US will not turn that person over to the ICC. They ahve no way to apprehend the suspect without the country''s permission. In fact, this whole thing does nothing in thta respect.

quote:

---

And, as for jealousy against the US: right now, the US comes up with new reasons almost every single day for me not to envy them Okay, the EU aint everything. We don''t do things like attacking other countries just like that, but America has the power to get an army anywhere within a few days. I just find it amusing that America uses all the power it has, just to claim "We are the World Leaders!!!" and take revenge on other countries when someone attacks them. They don''t use their power to support their claim "We are the World Leaders!!!" and... for example, try to calm the situation in the middle east.

---

You''re obviously jealous of our power. That''s half of what this thing is about, little insignificant powerless countries looking to gain leverage over larger, more powerful countries that don''t do everything they like. They are willing to use individual people as political pawns in their power games. The other part is that they convinced some people with humatarian motives that this is somehting beyond a superficial change.

And we don''t claim we are the world''s ''leader''. In fact, other countries often bitch about our lack of ''leadership''. We do, in fact, claim we are the world''s superpower. And, for better or worse, we are.


Mike

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederick Bastiat, The Law

After reading some of the vehement opinions voiced here, I''m inclined to agree with something a friend of mine once said: "Americans are the modern equivalent of the Victorians", at least on the political side.

Personally, I feel that the only solution to humanity''s instinctively fragmentary, separatist behaviour is that proposed by Asimov, ie Gaia. What a pity it''ll require about two centuries worth of technology development before it''s feasable.

I like my fragmentary, separatist behavior thank you.

You know you''re a programmer when your computer is like family. When it''s more like a lover, you need help.

Yeah, I think it was a compliment.


Mike

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederick Bastiat, The Law