| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by
James N. Markels More specifically, the ICC was crafted with totalitarians like Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot in mind at a time when governments were seen as the sole oppressors and civilians were the sole victims. The advent of terrorism, especially state-sponsored terrorism, has rendered the traditional dynamic obsolete. In being created to specifically target government officials that mastermind pogroms, the ICC fails to deal with the modern trend of terrorism by civilians, and any government that moves against such threats runs afoul of ICC protections for civilians. As an example, consider the current violence in the Middle East. Palestinian sympathizers are already calling for Israeli officials to be the first subjects for ICC investigations for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” because Israeli operations are affecting civilian Palestinians. But it’s Palestinian civilians who are serving as suicide bombers, not members of the Palestinian Authority. Any proactive attempt by the Israelis to stop this threat could technically be accused of running afoul of the ICC’s civilian protections. Additionally, the ICC’s definitions of offenses are so broad as to invite prosecution. “Genocide” is described by the ICC statute as various aggressive acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” (Emphasis mine.) So if a group of civilian religious fanatics get together and start plotting acts of terrorism, moving against all or even a part of them (how small a part?—even one?) to prevent that terrorism could technically be defined as genocide. Consider Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization, which is mostly composed of extremist Muslim Arab civilians. Under the ICC’s definition, America’s attempts to destroy this international operation could be termed genocidal. In fact, as the Taliban had only been recognized as Afghanistan’s legitimate government by three other nations, an argument could be made that any attack on the people of Afghanistan was technically an attack on civilians, and thereby an ICC violation. The ICC is simply not prepared to deal with modern terrorism. The ICC is also hopelessly antiquated when it comes to rights held by the accused, as provisions for trial by jury, speedy public proceedings and protections against double jeopardy are all absent from its procedure. An American brought before the ICC would have fewer rights than they currently enjoy under the Constitution. In addition, the ICC has technical loopholes allowing it to have jurisdiction over the citizens of nations that have not agreed to take part in it-a provision contrary to all previous treaties and international agreements. Only one party to the action at hand need be a signatory in order for the ICC to assert its jurisdiction. In other words, should the United States retract its signature (as is almost assured, considering the Senate’s overwhelming disapproval), member nations that have little interest in human rights (like Iran, Sudan and Syria) could assert the court’s jurisdiction over America anyway. Even worse, the ICC judges handling the case will come from the signatory nations, many of whom have no traditions of due process or fairness, and it is these same nations who are allowed to amend the ICC’s scope and jurisdiction as they see fit, regardless of the sovereignty of other nations. And even if the United States retains membership, each signatory gets an equal vote on such matters, regardless of their allegiance to justice and human rights. We would have an equal vote to Iran as to what kind of rights American citizens would have before the court. Besides all of this, the ICC still doesn’t acknowledge the simple fact that justice, however defined, can always be resisted by those with superior force. That is why French President Jacques Chirac was wrong when he claimed, “Starting now, all those who might be inclined to engage in the madness of genocide or crimes against humanity will know that nothing will be able to prevent justice.” If the Allies could not have defeated Germany in the battlefield, there would have been no trials at Nuremburg. Former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic wouldn’t be sitting in a court right now if he hadn’t been forcibly toppled from power. As much as we’d like to hope for a civilized resolution to violent acts, those the ICC is meant to punish are the same ones who only respect and acknowledge force. The ICC is meant to be the final answer to the troubling question, “What do civilized countries do with tyrants?” Tyrants used to be easily definable, but today’s world has tyrants of a different nature. Terrorism has turned civilians into potential weapons. The ICC was crafted too broadly to deal with threats of the 1940’s and 50’s. Today, it is obsolete before even becoming a reality. |
||
