Talk:International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Definite article

Should the name of this article start with "The"? AndrewRT 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. This article is more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Andjam 08:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm definite this is a good article.Hypnosadist 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --AndrewRT 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, fair and balanced. Raggz 10:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I'm genuinely reluctant to give you another warning, but you've deleted my previous comments here and you continue to insert controversial statements into articles without adequately referencing them.

When you cite a reference, you must ensure that your source actually states what you claim it states. You have added several controversial claims to The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but the sources you cite do not explicitly support your claims. For example, neither Grossman nor the UN Charter states that “The United Nations however has jurisdiction over all citizens of all of the UN member nations, so there are no nation's citizens who are exempt from international law” or that “The key jurisdictional issue that would prevent the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over aggression is that the ICC Statute gives the ICC the authority to define and punish the crime of “aggression,” which is solely the prerogative of the Security Council of the United Nations under the U.N. Charter”.

You keep adding an outdated link to Grossman's speech. It's clear you haven't even read the speech, so it is inappropriate for you to use it as a source.

Please remove your claims or find a reliable source that explicitly supports them. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look seriously at the issues you raise. There are UN non-member states, is this what we are talking about? The UN has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression for members, correct?

I have read Grossman's speech and I will cite it when appropriate. However, I will read it again, my memory is less than perfect. “The key jurisdictional issue that would prevent the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over aggression is that the ICC Statute gives the ICC the authority to define and punish the crime of “aggression,” which is solely the prerogative of the Security Council of the United Nations under the U.N. Charter”. If Grossman's speech doesn't support this, I will withdraw it. If it does, we can best maintain a NPOV with a contrasting interpretation?

“The United Nations however has jurisdiction over all citizens of all of the UN member nations, so there are no nation's citizens who are exempt from international law” Are you taking issue with the substance of this statement - or challenging that the citation needs review? Is there a UN member nation whose citizens are exempt from international law?

KEY POINT: It is unclear if your objections are (1) disputed facts or (2) disputes that the citations are adequate. While these are closely related issues, resolution requires differing approaches. Raggz 15:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am getting messages from Sideshow Bob Roberts on my "talk page" about this article. I reply here, because there is no user page with this name. Sideshow Bob Roberts does not reply here. Sideshow Bob Roberts claims that the my citations (including the United Nations Charter) may not be cited, that it is not an authoratative? Is this true?

"Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block."

The goal is to improve the article, part of the process is an exchange of views.

• (Quote from Side Show Bob Roberts): "Your claim that all war crimes that were committed during the invasion of Iraq “were properly investigated and prosecuted by national governments” is controversial and must be attributed to a reliable source."

Response:On page 9 of the Prosecutor's statement he says exactly this: He says "national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents".

This comment illustrates where an exchange of views will help improve the article. It illustrates how a particular POV (and non-factual POV) has been excluded from this article. The question is how to correct the ommission of this very important statement by the Prosecutor to attain a more NPOV. This issue is claimed to be about the quality of the source, but the same ICC document is freely quoted when it fits within a POV. It is only irrelevant when it conflicts with a POV? The reversion was done to protect a POV. Obviously the source and the quote are relevant and authoratative, and inserting it is not original research.

Speaking of original research, the article has a substantial amount inserted to protect a POV. This original research hypothesis is:

• There is any reasonable cause to believe that crimes committed by military personnel (other than Iraqi) are being ignored by any nation, the ICC, or the UN.

Presently this original research permeates this article. The reversion of my claim otherwise (supported by the ICC prosecutor) may not be reverted without Side Show Bob offering support for this original research. (Ethically, he should also notify the ICC Prosector as well.) Properly support this hypothesis, or withdraw it. Raggz 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

Having looked through the edits I'm afraid I agree that the current reverted version is more accurate than the amendments that were made. The amendments appear to have misunderstood and confused certain matters. A few examples:

• The ICC does not have jurisdiction over all infringements of international law. Aggression is clearly a crime under international law. However, the ICC does not currently have jurisdiction over this crime.

• The ICC does not have to defer to the Security Council over the crime of aggression. They are currently looking at the ways and means whereby the ICC can take jurisdiction - what is clear is that the UNSC will NOT have a veto. A distinction should be made between politicians statements about what they think should happen and a legal interpretation of what actually happens - mayb this is where the confusion lies.

If you have any particular amendments you still want to raise, please could you raise them here on the talk page first. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

National investigation of war crimes

On the particular point:

all war crimes that were committed during the invasion of Iraq were properly investigated and prosecuted by national governments

I cannot see how you can come to this conclusion from a reading of the chief prosecutors letter.

1. The prosecutor never considered whether the alleged crime of aggression was properly investigated as he concluded it was outside his jurisdiction

2. The prosecutor never considered whether alleged war crimes committed by US (or other non-State Party) soldiers were properly investigated - he only briefly considered whether nationals of state parties were indirectly concerned with any alleged war crimes

Perhaps you could reconsider your phrasing? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

UN jurisdiction

To take up another of your points:

The United Nations however has jurisdiction over all citizens of all of the UN member nations, so there are no nation's citizens who are exempt from international law

This is an odd statement on a few levels. The UN is an inter-governmental organisation. It is not a court so I don't really understand how it could have "jurisdiction". The only court associated with the UN - the Interntional Court of Justice - only has jurisdiction over UN member states, not individual people. Strictly speaking the ICC is not a part of the UN System, per se, although they do cooperate closely.

Nations may choose to resign from the UN, then they may violate the UN Charter. This is a problem for any ICC member that wants to deny Article 53-1 of the UN Charter, they need to leave the UN first. The UN is really not just "an inter-governmental organisation", it is the UN. The UN can order massive military force, start wars, as it did in Korea.

The UN is a court (and not a court). The UN does not have seperation of powers, or "branches". It has a judicial "organ" that is entirely controlled by the Security Council. At times the Security Council does act as the UN Judicial Branch. Courts interpret constitutions, the UNSC interprets the UN Charter, a purely judicial function. Disputes may be heard by the World Court, but are appealed to the UNSC. The UNSC also meets and acts as the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, most commonly acts utilizing powers of all three branches.

The authority and jurisdiction of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals now rest with the UNSC, as does the 1928 crimes against peace treaty (crime of aggresion). If not a judicial body, how could this be?

Secondly, international law is not like domestic criminal law - it cannot be enforced in the same way. It relies on national governments to enact legislation to criminalise the behaviour. It is a bit toothless in some respects - if you are a political leader you can choose to ignore it if you dont like it. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is your European perspective at work? To an American, national action to enforce law is quite familiar. Saddam decided to flaunt International law and there happened to be a UNSC Resolution authorizing US force. When national governments fail, International law can and is enforced by military force.

Western Europeans generally totally fail to understand this distinction. Law enforcement officers do not toss grenades into homes with innocent victims, with small children looking out of the window. Military forces properly and legally sometimes do so. Law enforcement officers use the minimum force necessary - military forces destroy and kill just about everything within the kill zone. The use of military force to enforce international law is a barbaric and brutal policy that is analagous to amputation of an infected arm, a very bad idea if there exists another option. Because I understand just how barbaric the war actually is, I understand why people oppose this war. If there is another option, it should be opposed.

Any nation that takes the military actions that the US has taken can expect to make multiple serious errors, and to be criticised for each. I have no problem with the article hammering these actual errors, this helps the US to learn, this doesn't harm us. We have no problem sending those who commit crimes to prison, the ICC prosecutor just confirmed that no one has impunity. The facts are the facts, do the US a favor and write them, even when we are wrong. Just don't suggest that the US military is in any sense a criminal force - if there are no facts to support this claim. The US Army created the democracies of Western Europe, and if the Geneva Conventions had been in place then you would all still have swastikas in every European school. What Western European Human Rights Group can make so substantial of a claim for sucess in advancing Human Rights? None.

• "In light of the conclusion reached on gravity, it was unnecessary to reach a conclusion on complementarity. It may be observed, however, that the Office also collected information on national proceedings, including commentaries from various sources, and that national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents." What does this mean: "national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents"? To me, it means that all reports of crimes were being handled by national authorities. It also suggests that no in-depth review of the US or British trials was conducted. The good news? No impunity, that all potential criminal acts were being handled. So - what am I missing? Raggz 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the suggestion that the US Army "created the democracies of Western Europe" is ahistorical nonsense. Neither is it correct to say that Western Europeans fail to understand that when "When national governments fail, International law can and is enforced by military force. ". The whole reason for the disagreement between "western europe" and the US over the invasion of Iraq, was that W.E. argued that the invasion was not authorised by International Law. This is not the place to rehearse those arguments, however it is clear that the W.E. position on the pt was entirely based on their reading of the position in International law. As for the statement "What Western European Human Rights Group can make so substantial of a claim for sucess in advancing Human Rights? None.", this demonstrates an alarming ignorance of the role played by the Council of Europe in Europe since 1950.Diranh 03:25, 24 May 2007 GMT +1)

This discussion highlights the real problem.

1. The US and its supporters claiming sole authority on democracy, a fair trial and human rights.
2. Because of the previous point they assume the right the enforce their superior lifestyle on the rest of the world.
3. Anyone opposing that by definition is anti-American because they are jealous.
4. The US fail to acknowledge that their Constitution and judicial system is copied from European democracies. In deed, the perceived democratic values the US is spreading are effectively European in origin.
5. The previous points ignore the fact that in a certain dispute the US might be wrong and i.e. Europe is right. However, this thought is readily dismissed on account of point 1.
6. Many conflicts in the world might be explained by the previous argument, i.e. people oppose the US for their undying support of undemocratice leaders (Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, et cetera) Certainly the fact the US is currently blackmailing Iran with an armed invasion might explain its ambition to develop nuclear weapons. History has shown that when you have those (China, North-Korea) the US will leave you alone, when you have none (Iraq) you will be attacked. How this is advancing democracy is beyond me. It does create animosity and is the root cause of muslim extremism today. The double standard and hypocricy that is.
7. The last point I would like to make is: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We know the position of Europe and of the US. Just look around the world and we can see that the US actions (Iraq, Operation Condor, Vietnam, et cetera) have been counterproductive which Europe has been saying all along. Sticking to the rule of law is never inferior to sticking to the power of armed forces.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the concept of the use of force by American or anyone else to enforce UNSC resolutions. I accept that the UNSC has the power to make legal determinations (e.g. on whether a threat to international peace exists), something which I accept generally is the role of courts. I would however see the UNSC as primarily an executive authority, in the sense that it makes decisions (e.g. recommending the UNSG) and passses resolutions (e.g. authorising the use of force). That doesn't in my mind make them a court. However, I reiterate my main point which you have ignored: the UN decides on disputes between countries. It does not rule on individuals. Individuals are not party to their proceedings in any way - countries are. To say that the "United Nations has jurisdiction over all citizens" is a fundamental misunderstanding. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nescio, you're way off topic. Most of those points belong in Anti-Americanism. I agree with Raggz. Ipankonin 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We could debate many points. I like the article, I took a long absence and find that it is much more fair and balanced than it once was. It is better than I would have created.

The UNSC is a legal tribunal, because the UN Charter does not create any independent judiciary. It however is not a court, and is a political body, executive, legislative, and judicial - all in one. When it acts as a court, it refers matters to a tribunal like the ICJ or ICC, but opinions are appealed to it.

Reading back, I think that I was wrong on many points, a new editor learning in his first article. Thanks for your kind and gentle patience while I learned. Raggz (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the suggestion that the US Army "created the democracies of Western Europe" is ahistorical nonsense. Neither is it correct to say that Western Europeans fail to understand that when "When national governments fail, International law can and is enforced by military force. ". The whole reason for the disagreement between "western europe" and the US over the invasion of Iraq, was that W.E. argued that the invasion was not authorised by International Law. This is not the place to rehearse those arguments, however it is clear that the W.E. position on the pt was entirely based on their reading of the position in International law. As for the statement "What Western European Human Rights Group can make so substantial of a claim for sucess in advancing Human Rights? None.", this demonstrates an alarming ignorance of the role played by the Council of Europe in Europe since 1950.Diranh 03:25, 24 May 2007 GMT +1)

Perhaps you misunderstand, the Third Reich would not have permitted any of the WE democracies to exist. Today, swastikas would adorn every WE classroom. There would be human rights groups meeting in secret, but no treaties or laws. No EU. No ECHR. This would make WE a different, but even more unified world. My crippled father pays the price of liberation daily, so we do not forget.

Once liberated, the US helped rebuild WE, and let it become what is should be. The Iron Curtain was brought down. Much WE progress has been made, but the fundamental reason for this being possible was due to the USSR, the EU (all of it), and the US.

"What Western European Human Rights Group can make so substantial of a claim for sucess in advancing Human Rights? None." Without these three armies, WE would be part of the Third Reich and you would not recognize it. You show an alarming ignorance of history. Raggz (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion highlights the real problem.

The US and its supporters claiming sole authority on democracy, a fair trial and human rights. Because of the previous point they assume the right the enforce their superior lifestyle on the rest of the world. Untrue Anyone opposing that by definition is anti-American because they are jealous. Untrue The US fail to acknowledge that their Constitution and judicial system is copied from European democracies. In deed, the perceived democratic values the US is spreading are effectively European in origin. What European democracy predates the US? The Presbyterian Book of Order was influential, the seeds were European, but they never could have grown within Europe then, or the Third Reich later. The previous points ignore the fact that in a certain dispute the US might be wrong and i.e. Europe is right. However, this thought is readily dismissed on account of point 1. Many conflicts in the world might be explained by the previous argument, i.e. people oppose the US for their undying support of undemocratice leaders (Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, et cetera) Certainly the fact the US is currently blackmailing Iran with an armed invasion might explain its ambition to develop nuclear weapons. History has shown that when you have those (China, North-Korea) the US will leave you alone, when you have none (Iraq) you will be attacked. How this is advancing democracy is beyond me. It does create animosity and is the root cause of muslim extremism today. The double standard and hypocricy that is. The last point I would like to make is: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We know the position of Europe and of the US. Just look around the world and we can see that the US actions (Iraq, Operation Condor, Vietnam, et cetera) have been counterproductive which Europe has been saying all along. Sticking to the rule of law is never inferior to sticking to the power of armed forces. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The US perhaps more than any, sticks to the Rule of Law. Not always. This however is too long of a debate for here.

The response to rest above is too poorly understood by you to likely reach you. What is required by the Rule of Law also includes the laws of war. We are in a war. Much of what we do is governed by the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions, neither of which you understand. Both are as much EU law as they are US law. To the degree that this law prohibits trials (unless accused of crimes), the EU laws requiring trials are invalidated by your signature on the Geneva Conventions. So, has the EU repudiated the Geneva Convention ban on trials for prisoners not accused of crimes? No, the Geneva Conventions still apply, even if you never read them.

No worries. I like the article. It is still on my list and I may contribute, but none of the above. Raggz (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327061739/http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf to http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305163819/http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/press/mediaalert/160703press_conf_presentation.pdf to http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/press/mediaalert/160703press_conf_presentation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)