Comments on: International Injustice - The need for reform of the International Criminal Court http://www.geo-politics.co.uk/2009/04/international-injustice/ International Relations, Foreign Policy and Human Rights Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:20:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: MB http://www.geo-politics.co.uk/2009/04/international-injustice/comment-page-1/#comment-82 MB Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:40:43 +0000 http://abdn954.wordpress.city-1.vsccreative.com/?p=168#comment-82 "Yet this is not the case with the ICC. The crimes it was set up to try were crimes in 1994, they were crimes at the time of the inception of the ICC and they are crimes now." I don't understand how this can be the case. The problem with the ICC on this issue is that, leaving aside the number of laws it can rule upon, the entire jurisdiction was only created in 2002. Now, it's one thing to argue that a single law should be applied retrospectively; however, surely it's a significantly different and more monumental thing to argue that an entire jurisdiction should be created and that it should then apply all of the laws upon which it can rule retrospectively. The only way in which this might be possible is if the ICC were applying, and incorporating, laws from another jurisdiction, such as international laws. Even then it would be unlikely, I would have thought, that the ICC would be able to apply these laws retrospectively as they would most probably require some kind of incorporating legislation after which they would be applicable by the ICC. Whatever the matter, to simply say that the ICC should be able to try matters because the actions were illegal in some respect in 1994 under Rwandan law is insufficient to give the ICC jurisdiction. “Yet this is not the case with the ICC. The crimes it was set up to try were crimes in 1994, they were crimes at the time of the inception of the ICC and they are crimes now.”

I don’t understand how this can be the case. The problem with the ICC on this issue is that, leaving aside the number of laws it can rule upon, the entire jurisdiction was only created in 2002. Now, it’s one thing to argue that a single law should be applied retrospectively; however, surely it’s a significantly different and more monumental thing to argue that an entire jurisdiction should be created and that it should then apply all of the laws upon which it can rule retrospectively.

The only way in which this might be possible is if the ICC were applying, and incorporating, laws from another jurisdiction, such as international laws. Even then it would be unlikely, I would have thought, that the ICC would be able to apply these laws retrospectively as they would most probably require some kind of incorporating legislation after which they would be applicable by the ICC.

Whatever the matter, to simply say that the ICC should be able to try matters because the actions were illegal in some respect in 1994 under Rwandan law is insufficient to give the ICC jurisdiction.

]]> By: Henry Jackson http://www.geo-politics.co.uk/2009/04/international-injustice/comment-page-1/#comment-81 Henry Jackson Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:26:11 +0000 http://abdn954.wordpress.city-1.vsccreative.com/?p=168#comment-81 "Yet this is not the case with the ICC. The crimes it was set up to try were crimes in 1994, they were crimes at the time of the inception of the ICC and they are crimes now." I don't understand how this can be the case. The problem with the ICC on this issue is that, leaving aside the number of laws it can rule upon, the entire jurisdiction was only created in 2002. Now, it's one thing to argue that a single law should be applied retrospectively; however, surely it's a significantly different and more monumental thing to argue that an entire jurisdiction should be created and that it should then apply all of the laws upon which it can rule retrospectively. The only way in which this might be possible is if the ICC were applying, and incorporating, laws from another jurisdiction, such as international laws. Even then it would be unlikely, I would have thought, that the ICC would be able to apply these laws retrospectively as they would most probably require some kind of incorporating legislation. Whatever the matter, to simply say that the ICC should be able to try matters because the actions were illegal in some respect in 1994 under Rwandan law is insufficient to give the ICC jurisdiction. “Yet this is not the case with the ICC. The crimes it was set up to try were crimes in 1994, they were crimes at the time of the inception of the ICC and they are crimes now.”

I don’t understand how this can be the case. The problem with the ICC on this issue is that, leaving aside the number of laws it can rule upon, the entire jurisdiction was only created in 2002. Now, it’s one thing to argue that a single law should be applied retrospectively; however, surely it’s a significantly different and more monumental thing to argue that an entire jurisdiction should be created and that it should then apply all of the laws upon which it can rule retrospectively.

The only way in which this might be possible is if the ICC were applying, and incorporating, laws from another jurisdiction, such as international laws. Even then it would be unlikely, I would have thought, that the ICC would be able to apply these laws retrospectively as they would most probably require some kind of incorporating legislation.

Whatever the matter, to simply say that the ICC should be able to try matters because the actions were illegal in some respect in 1994 under Rwandan law is insufficient to give the ICC jurisdiction.

]]>