Should the US now recognise the ICC

U.S. rejects global pact on war-crimes tribunal Neil A. Lewis The New York Times Monday, May 6, 2002 Bush to 'unsign' Clinton-era agreement WASHINGTON The Bush administration has decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty creating an international criminal court and is expected to declare that the signing of the document by the Clinton administration is no longer valid, according to government officials. The "unsigning" of the treaty, which is expected to be announced Monday, will be a decisive rejection by the Bush White House of the concept of a permanent tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes. The administration has long maintained that the court has the potential to create havoc for the United States, exposing American soldiers involved overseas and U.S. officials to capricious and mischievous prosecutions. http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?tem...ArticleId=56710

Well, my opinion has always been that the US should have ratified the treaty. History has it that while Clinton signed the treaty that it would not be ratified due to the US political right wing.

Of course, that Bush *unsigned* the treaty was quite an unusual event in itself. Now, every good conspiracy theorist can have some fun. The recent revelations concerning the abuse of prisoners by US troops and civilian employees certainly give them fuel to conclude that the Bush administration wanted a war and no accountability. And who knows, they could of course be right.

With the abuse coming to light however, the US should now show some honor and sign the treaty in good faith and open its prisoner handling processes up for inspection and also honor the Geneva Conventions, not simply in spirit, but to the letter. Otherwise, what will the world think of the US?

And of course, the people of the United States can thank Bush for this.

[Gorgo]

The U.S. has shown never shown much interest in obeying international law. If Saddam Hussein had the veto, he would never be guilty of violations of international law, either.

Gorgo

Actually, there is a case on record of the US using its veto in the Security Council to avoid a resolution on the US activities in Nicaragua (Sponsoring the Contras) but the plaintiff still getting a resolution. Nicaragua used a remedy for this that was devised back in history to prevent the USSR doing much the same with its veto. Eisenhower used the same remedy to get a resolution during the Suez crisis when Britain and France used their vetos in the Security Council to avoid resolutions on their antics.

I have the links for the documents on the subject somewhere but I'm too lazy to look them out. It's also another reason I believe Bush never cared whether or not there was a resolution favorable to invading Iraq. If he really had the support he claimed, he could have gotten a resolution through the General Assembly, but he never even tried, even though he claimed diplomacy was exhausted.

On the subject of the resolution against the US, the International courts found for Nicaragua and the US was essentially found to be sponsoring international terrorism and ordered to pay Nicaragua something like 20 billion. The US never paid and when the Contras took power by election, they basically wiped things.

[Gorgo]

Sorry, didn't understand this sentence. You're saying that there was a Security Council Resolution against the U.S. on this matter?

You're right about the Court. The U.S. doesn't recognize the court's authority.

The U.S. should clean up its own terrorist activities before it makes an attempt to get people to believe it cares about terrorism.

Originally posted by PeterWolf, Gorgo Actually, there is a case on record of the US using its veto in the Security Council to avoid a resolution on the US activities in Nicaragua (Sponsoring the Contras) but the plaintiff still getting a resolution.

Here's a bit about it:

The History of 'Uniting for Peace'
In 1950, UN Resolution 377 was passed into law under the tutelage of U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson. North Korea had invaded the South in June 1950. The UN Security Council acted promptly to deploy UN troops, under U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, to repel the North Korean forces. The Soviet Union was boycotting the UN at the time, and thus was not able to exercise its veto power as a member of the Permanent Five. When the boycott ended, however, the Soviets did subsequently use their veto in votes related to the war, leading Acheson to promote the Uniting for Peace Resolution, to circumvent the Soviet veto. It was adopted by the General Assembly in November 1950, but was not actually invoked until 1956.

The 1956 Suez crisis was even more strikingly parallel to the current situation, since it was two Western members of the Permanent Five—England and France—which were the aggressors, having invaded an Arab state, Egypt, in league with Israel! Israel first invaded Egypt on its own, but when the Security Council attempted to take the actions required under the UN Charter to end the aggression, the British and the French exercised their veto. In response, Yugoslavia, with the full support of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, invoked the Uniting for Peace Resolution, and the subsequent General Assembly emergency session demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israel from the Sinai. When that was not forthcoming, the emergency session, on Nov. 5, 1956, created the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), an armed force intended to be a buffer between the Israelis and the Egyptians (much as the Palestinians are today calling on the UN to send troops to protect them against the Israeli occupying army).

The very next day, the British and the French, rather than conceding to the will of the world's nations, invaded Egypt themselves, occupied the Suez Canal, and claimed (falsely) that the Egyptian nationalization of the Suez Canal was illegal under international law.

U.S. President Eisenhower recognized immediately that the British and the French were flaunting the body of international law established after World War II, while reviving their 19th-Century unilateralist, imperial policies. Eisenhower not only put his full weight behind the General Assembly's UNEF, which arrived in Egypt on Nov. 16, but he also threatened to cut off oil supplies to the invaders. Under such pressure, and exposed for their criminal activity, the invaders withdrew.

There have been nine situations in which the Uniting for Peace Resolution has been used: Hungary in 1956; Lebanon in 1958; Congo in 1960; the Middle East in 1967; and (since 1967) Bangladesh, Afghanistan, South Africa, and Palestine, several times. The most recent Res. 377 emergency session began in 1997, dealing with East Jerusalem. This session is still standing, and was last convened in August 2002. Some Arab leaders have considered reconvening this same emergency session to address the war in Iraq, as intimately connected to the Mideast crisis.

[Gorgo]

Okay. Not clear again, sorry, but are you saying that there has been a UN Security Council Resolution against some action of the United States?

The U.S. is quick to veto crimes of Israel and its other client states, and ignores the General Assembly and international court, but I don't remember hearing that a U.N. Security Council Resolution was ever passed against an illegal action of the United States.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r011.htm

From the General Assembly, in the Security Council itself, the veto has power. Understand the remedy for the veto to understand how the GA has power in some situations.