I agree with Norbert's comments. For the court to have jurisdiction
over crimes yet to be committed seems to at least partially eliminate
its raison d'�tre.
On the other hand, I agree to some extent with the position of the
United States (which, I'm sure, they will be pleased to hear) that there
has to be some safeguards built into the system to prevent trumped up
charges for political purposes and the possibility of the politicization
of the court itself. One difficulty that I can envisage is the nature
of the values established by the court; e.g. the court will likely be
weighted in favor of common law/judeo/christian principles. There are
other value systems throughout the world over whose adherents the court
would purport to prevail.
Thats my $0.02 worth.
Norbert Strade wrote:
> *I don't understand this argument. Does it mean that crimes committed
> the current ad-hoc courts on Ruanda and Ex-Yugoslavia and the start of
> the ICC
> won't be persecuted? Both the Ruanda and Ex-Y. courts were created
> *after* most
> of the crimes had happened (not to mention Nuremberg). So what's the
> deal here?
> To save the current Russian leadership from persecution in order to
> get their
> support for the ICC in exchange? N.S.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]