[ICC] NEWS: The Need for Global Justice

Dear Friends,

The article below describes the idea of global justice has evolved and how
the ICC is needed for reinforcing rule of law. It also gives an overview of
the ICC and highlights how Americans would benefit from this institution.
An excerpt reads:
"The time is ripe for the ICC. It will be formally established-with
or without [U.S.] -- after 60 nations have ratified the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court. The number count is up to 43. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan anticipates the ICC will be established in the
next year. At a recent conference, he heralded the ICC as an important move
toward a "world based on the rule of law." History will remember whether we
stand for 'justice' as defined by Socrates or follow the 'might makes
right' philosophy of Thrasymachus."

Regards,

Tunga Ganbold
CICC Secretariat
*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`**`*`**`*`**`*`**`*`**`*`*`**`*`*`*`*
This E-mail list has an option to get 1 post per day. Simply e-mail to:
[email protected] to switch to this service.
*`*`*`*`*`*`*`**`*`*`*`*`**`*`*`*`*`**`*`*`**`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*
Copyright 2001 The Stanford Daily via U-Wire

University Wire

October 31, 2001

SECTION: COLUMN

LENGTH: 1118 words

HEADLINE: The need for global justice

BYLINE: By Rob Gaudet, The Stanford Daily

SOURCE: Stanford U.

DATELINE: Stanford, Calif.

BODY:
One of my favorite books is Plato's Republic. The main character, Socrates,
discusses a concept that has become one of the foundations of western
civilization -- justice. He calls it the "proper virtue of man" and says it
is "more precious than many pieces of gold."
Unfortunately, we've strayed away from justice. We've been living under the
philosophy of Socrates' antagonist, Thrasymachus, who argued that "justice
is nothing else than the interest of the stronger." This is popularly known
as "might makes right." American foreign policy has followed this course
for the past 200 years. I don't mean to criticize what America has done in
the name of democracy, freedom and self-preservation. However, I do think
the time is right to create an International Criminal Court.
World delegates met in Rome in 1998 to create an International Criminal
Court to handle war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity wherever
they take place. So far, 139 countries have signed on. Among these, 43 have
ratified the treaty. They look like earth's angels: Sweden, Switzerland,
Norway, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Denmark, Austria and Canada.
The countries that have not signed the treaty look like a compilation of
earth's bad boys: Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The
latter nations have the kind of reputations that would allow them to form a
rock band and sell millions of albums to rebellious teenagers. I'm not sure
if that's the right company for America to be keeping.
Our country has been equivocating on whether to ratify the treaty. The U.S.
Defense Department heavily opposed the idea. Nevertheless, former President
Clinton signed the treaty in late 2000. It hasn't been ratified, which
means, basically, that we are still holding out. Retiring Senator Jesse
Helms is trying very hard to block American cooperation and, more
generally, to prevent any kind of movement into the 20th century (much less
the 21st century) world of international affairs. He calls the ICC an
"International Kangaroo Court." I suppose that should be enough to convince
you that it's a good idea.
Let me tell you a true story about another charming man who opposes the
ICC: former Secretary of State James Baker III. Baker III is a partner at
Texas's oldest law firm, where his son, Baker IV, works in a different
branch office. I met Baker III this summer when the law firm Baker Botts
took dozens of summer associates to Houston for a presentation by the
former Secretary of State.
At the presentation, one student asked Baker III for his views on the ICC.
He replied, "it's the worst idea ever to have surfaced." I thought that was
a strange response for an idea endorsed by 139 nations. I told Baker III
that I disagreed with him. He tore into me like a hungry UT-Austin student
tearing into a plate of ribs. Baker III was worried that the ICC would
bring him into court for bombing Libya in 1988, despite the fact that the
bombing was condoned by the United Nations.
I told him, "the U.N.'s approval would've been part of your defense and,
most likely, it would've exculpated you."
Baker III retorted, "this is the best country on earth and it is so great
that everyone is moving here to be a part of it." I agreed with him and
said that we should use our greatness to set up an international court.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shares many features
with the American judiciary. It provides for the presumption of innocence,
the right to remain silent, the right against self-incrimination, the right
to have legal counsel of one's choosing and the right to be informed of
charges against oneself.
The ICC would not be allowed to hear cases which have been seriously
investigated by a state court. That means the military trial in the "Rules
of Engagement" movie (which I do not recommend on any grounds except as an
illustration of this point) would've exempted Samuel Jackson's character
from the jurisdiction of the ICC.
That's not good enough for Baker III. In fact, he said in our Houston
presentation that the ICC was only supported by "thumb-sucking liberals."
That was a direct reference to our exchange. In my defense, I neither suck
my thumb nor consider myself liberal. Progressive, maybe. Thumb-sucking,
never.
This experience taught me a few things. One, a marine (Baker III used to be
one) will always be a marine. Two, former Secretaries of State can be
jerks. Three, people disagree violently when they are afraid of being
hauled into court. Four, Thrasymachus's argument that "might makes right"
has followers in all ages.
Americans would benefit from a forum like the ICC. If our lawyers can
successfully defend O.J. Simpson against murder charges, they should have
no trouble defending Baker III against charges in the ICC for the 1988
Libya bombing. Furthermore, the ICC is being shaped in our own image. It
contains many features of the American judicial system. Former Ambassador
to the U.N. Bill Richardson wrote in the New York Times that the U.S. has
won agreement on the scope of crimes covered (we kept it narrowly focused
on the most horrific crimes), led successful talks on rules of procedure
and evidence and led talks on how to describe the elements of each crime.
Our lawyers would be able to navigate the ICC as well as anyone. Our
soldiers, too, are the most professional in the world. They would be the
least likely candidates for ICC prosecution. If they do kill civilians
without ample reason, then I'm sure the American public would be happy to
see them held accountable.
History shows (through the Persian, Inca, Aztec, Roman and Babylonian
empires) that America's power won't last forever. We'll be better off in
the long-run if we create a level playing field while we can.
We should support the ICC and throw the Saddam Husseins and Mohammar
Qaddafis of the world into court. Bring them onto our own turf. On the flip
side, the ICC might bring Americans into court for civilian deaths in the
Middle East. I would rather see our injustices addressed by appointed
judges than by self-appointed terrorists like bin Laden.
The time is ripe for the ICC. It will be formally established-with or
without us -- after 60 nations have ratified the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court. The number count is up to 43. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan anticipates the ICC will be established in the
next year. At a recent conference, he heralded the ICC as an important move
toward a "world based on the rule of law." History will remember whether we
stand for "justice" as defined by Socrates or follow the "might makes
right" philosophy of Thrasymachus.
(C) 2001 The Stanford Daily via U-WIRE

LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2001

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Tunga Ganbold
Information Services
NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court

777 UN Plaza 12th Floor
New York New York 10017
USA
Telephone +1 212 687 2176 Faxsimile +1 212 599 1332
Email [email protected]
Web http://www.iccnow.org
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

To: email:
Unsubscribe: [email protected].com
Subscribe: [email protected]
Contact owner: [email protected]
Get help: [email protected]
Get 1 post/day: [email protected]
Stop email: [email protected]
Restore defaults: [email protected]

Para suscribirse a la lista en espanol,
envie un email a: [email protected]
Pour souscrire a la liste d'information en frangais,
envoyer un e-mail: [email protected]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/icc-info/messages
Coalition for an International Criminal Court:
http://www.iccnow.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/