Posted by Julia from host194.crp.org (126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 at 10:31AM :
In Reply to: Re: New war crimes tribunal posted by panch from pool0368.cvx20-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 at 9:54AM :
: : : : :
: : : : : : >>a good argument i've heard is that because we don't have a one world government, we should not have one world jurisdiction that trumps national jurisdiction in legal cases...
: : : : : +++Ever hear of the Nuremburg Trials? Ever hear of World war Two?
: : : : > those trials were ad hoc and not part of an international court that trumps national jurisdiction over legal issues related to war crimes....
: : : +++WHAT??? "ad hoc"???? NOT international??? I suppose the second world warrr was a rap group.
: : >>ad hoc, yes, ad hoc
: ++++You can repeat it forever...you haven't said much when you've said "ad hoc". ....your point?
>>if the us has a reason to believe its military has committed war crimes..it has jurisdiction to try its own people through due process of the law, under their laws. same thing if a greek committed a war crime...the legal body that gets first dibs on trying the greek person is a greek court. in some cases (rwanda, and i think sri lanka) the legal body with jursidiction doesn't have the capacity to do it - $$, lawyers, etc are not in the plenty, and so they defer to international organizations to help them along in the process and get the trials done. that is what ad hoc is; improvised given that the country with jursidiction of the crime has not the resources/capacity to do the trials.
the point that you missed was because we don't have a one world government, how can we have one world legal jurisdiction over war crimes. because a government creates the laws, it enforces them and it has jurisdiction over when the laws are violated....
even with the ICC, there is no guarantee that when a greek commits a war crime he'll be tried by the ICC. Rather, his country would have first dibs on trying him.
-- signature .
Post a Followup