Talk:International Criminal Court/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Undue weight at Criticism/Rights of the accussed section

This section of the article focusses entirely on US criticism of the rights of the accussed. The US is just one of almost 200 states which is or could be a participant in the court, so this article should give weight to other countries and or organizations as well. Some of those might be perfectly happy with the current situation, so that should be incorporated as well. It currently seems like the US Constitution is the holy grail for fair and balanced trials and rights for the accussed. While, as an example, for a continental European as myself a trial by jury seems horrific. My suggestion is to mention a bunch of countries and organizations and then have their viewpoints directly next to them, so that it is clear that there are different viewpoints. Crispulop (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the point that only the US system is referenced here and that the article would be more balanced if other nation's legal systems were referred to. However, to my mind and much more fundamental is the question or test of "fit for the purpose". In other words does the system and it's processes adequately address or 'fit' the purpose of the institution? Are jury trials actually appropiate for the type of cases the ICC tries. Whilst it is generally the case that where jury trials are used the jury is the arbiter of fact judges are not entirely precluded from this area. In the UK for example judges may determine whether certain, factual, evidence may be admitted or not. In France and Scotland an inquisitional system exists where a judge conducts the preliminary stage of a criminal matter including the collection and evaluation of evidence. Essentially I would like to see some critical examination of the system used explaining it's differences and their purpose from the usual practices of various nation states. Savize (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for points/info to address this criticism:

• Correction/further clarification; actually the US constitution grants the right to confront "witnesses" rather than the "accusers"
• Judge only trials frequently coexist in systems with jury trials for a number of reasons:

• minor criminal offences are often dealt with by a judge; who may be legally qualified (France, Scotland,UK, USA) or a lay person who recives training and support for their work e.g. lay magistrates in the UK.
• the difficulty of empanelling an unbiased jury where the alleged offence has attracted a great deal of negative or controversial media attention/speculation
• the complexity of the charges e.g. serious fraud cases

• Judge only trials exist in systems such as China, Iran, Netherlands, Russia
• Hybryd judge & jury trials (where judges vote as jury members) also exist as in France which conducts some criminal trials with three judges and nine lay jurors
• the existence of judge vs jury trials can be affected by whether the legal system is adversarial or inquisitorial; the former tend to jury trials while the latter tend to judge only criminal trials

re "... US citizens do not always have a right to a jury trial." Always is a 'loaded' word. This court is concerned with felonies, so please point out in the US where a civilian defendant is not allowed a jury trial when facing a felony charge.

n.b. this is drawn from my general knowledge and understanding. I will check and reference the points in due course. Savize (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient. According to the Heritage Foundation "Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic U.S. constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers."[1]"

Proposed edit - to improve style and eliminate repetition:

Delete the sentence: "Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient."

Rationale: the word "some" is too vague and invites the question "who" or "who exactly". It also simply rephrases the heading and is therefore an unnecessary repetition.

Proposed edit - factual correction

Remove the link set in the quotation "right to confront one's accusers" and add the sentence: "The sixth amendment to the US constitution actually provides for an accused person to have the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him".

Rationale: whilst the quote itself may be correctly reproduced it is, in fact not accurate. There is a difference between an accuser and a witness and more importantly witnesses are not actually accusers in a criminal trial; that is the role of the prosecutor. Indeed in many criminal systems ordinary citizens do not have the right to conduct a prosecution except in exceptional circumstances. Savize (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Savize that's a semantic argument. Witness' against an individual accused of a crime are accusing them of a crime.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As the phrase "the right to confront one's accusers" has entered into common useage perhaps the best thing to do would be to expand the point rather than simply correcting it. Thus: 'Whilst the phrase "the right to confront has entered into common usage the sixth amendment to the US constitution actually provides for an accused person to have the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him"'. I hope this addresses your concern. Savize (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As per usual with these "international" groups led by the west, and half the worlds population is not even a member of this so called "international" court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T32423423423 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it it bizarre to start a paragraph on the rights of the accused with the opinion of a bigot 'think-tank' which is known for misrepresenting the truth on many subjects?

Since 2013 there hasn't been done with this section, time to remove it? Bever (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Cleared from charges

The photo of Kenyatta is accompanied with the assertion that he was one "who was cleared of charges of crimes against humanity". Doest that suggest that he was innocent? (I am not a native speaker but that is how I would interpret the words.) A more neutral wording might be that charges 'were dropped'. Bever (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Laughable

It is absolutely hilarious how the term conservative is used to describe the Heritage Foundation but when Human Rights Watch is mentioned one sentence later, the term liberal is not used as a descriptor, as if the HRC is not a liberal organization. What a joke. And anyone claiming the HRC doesn't hew to the left is kidding himself and everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Int21h (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is confused. Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Human Rights Campaign (the HRC) are two different organizations. While many would call the HRC liberal, as it is an LGBT rights organization, I don't know of any legit source that would characterize HRW the same way. Viciouslies (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree "conservative" in this context adds some bias to the text. However, please note that calling institutions "liberal" is something very restricted to the US political debate and not correct within an international discussion, as such adjective has other meanings in other political scenarios. --Jgsodre (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the United States in an International context "conservative"?

Is the president of the United States in an International context "conservative"? 05:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Russia have now withdrawn

Putin has signed an order to do so. An IP has added this to the lead but it should really be mentioned in the body as Russia were a founding signatory, even if they never ratified it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The source only says that Putin has signed an order to do so, not that it has actually been done. If and when the withdrawal has taken place, it would be added to the list of other states which have withdrawn their signature, such as the US, in International_Criminal_Court#State_parties. TDL (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I suppose Putin could sign another order to remove his signature from the order he just signed to remove Russia's signature, if he changes his mind ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single source doubting their intention of leaving or calling it a bluff. Really don't see why it'd be unclear at this point. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying that it's unclear, but rather that it hasn't yet occurred. An intention to do something and actually doing it are two different things. – Zntrip 23:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why not mention the intention? It's not like we omit Brexit from Wikipedia because it hasn't actually happened yet. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with doubting Russia's intention, and has everything to do with accurately reflecting the current situation rather than WP:CRYSTALBALL projections. A good example is Kenya, who's parliament voted to withdraw years ago, but it has never actually formally withdrawn. Personally I don't doubt that it will withdraw one day, but as of today it has not. TDL (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Now an editor is attempting to prematurely edit war this in without consensus at Template:ICC member states, on the grounds that it is "a development in progress". We have an article which documents "developments in progress": States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The point of the template is to summarize the current status. If we listed all "developments in progress" on the template it would become very long and would no longer be a summary. At that point it would cease to be useful and we might as well just delete it and transclude States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Additionally, the user is citing Sputnik (news agency), which is not a WP:RS. See for example: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_205#Sputnik_News. TDL (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on International Criminal Court. 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/20061205220343/http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm to http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/pressrelease_details%26id%3D152%26l%3Den.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/201.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/chambers.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/otp.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/23428.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2006/0821defenders.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/defence/defaccused.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/victimsissues.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/vtf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220011242/http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ to http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN056745.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/newsletter/12/en_06.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/288.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/222.html

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) 18:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Duterte

ICC is investigating Duterte. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.220.234 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Phillippines Withdrawal

The Phillippines has left the Court, why are they still marked as green on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.213.53.65 (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bolton speech and threats against the court and cooperating parties of U.S. retaliation for illegal prosecution of American nationals

Awhile back, I argued that the ICC’s claim of, in effect, “universal jurisdiction,” the court’s right to try citizens of countries that never ratified its founding treaty, was spurious and that members of the court that tried American citizens, for example, including prosecutors and judges, should be tried for attempted abductions of U.S. citizens in the U.S. criminal justice system and that governmental officials of countries that cooperated with such an illegal trial be charged and sanctioned as well. Today, National Security Advisor John Bolton said exactly that on behalf of the Trump Administration. At the very least, this should be included in the criticisms (of the court) section, though it far exceeds mere criticism. This is a major development:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000006097156/bolton-icc-sanctions.html HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: nearly an hour before you posted this comment, I added Bolton's speech to the article. I also added his threat to bar ICC judges and prosecutors from entering the U.S. and sanction their funds to John R. Bolton, where it is more appropriate than here. KalHolmann (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have read the article more thoroughly than I did before posting here. I don't know what your view is about the ICC's (or any nation's for that matter) claim of "universal jurisdiction" (mine is obvious), but at the very least you agree that this is notable for the article. I'm appreciative.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In light of your remarks, I expanded the content relating to Bolton's speech by including his threat to bar ICC judges and prosecutors, and sanction their funds. However, I'm not entirely sure that extra bit really belongs here under "Checks and balances." Hopefully, other editors will help sort this out. KalHolmann (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hague Invasion Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act USA legalizes war against Netherlands to occupy The Hague to free U.S. suspects. Somewhat pertinent. 176.37.35.147 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan Investigation Denied

ICC judges unanimously rejected prosecutor Fatou Bensouda's request to open investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan by US personnel and Afghan security forces on the grounds that the lack of cooperation from the US will not produce meaningful convictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.126.235 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

References

New category

I've just created and started populating Category:War crimes trials, but I realize I'm not sure how this needs to intersect with the existing ICC categories. Anyone want to help out? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

sentences

What is the sentences guilty parties recieve? and has anyone been sentenced? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

First verdict today 14 March 2012 - a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The court cannot impose the death penalty. (BBC) EdwardLane (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree that HRW does have a strong "left wing" bias. I am not saying it is a bad organization, just it definitely does have a bias, and I think that should be acknowledged. Jedistormtrooper0625 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree that HRW does have a strong "left wing" bias. I am not saying it is a bad organization, just it definitely does have a bias, and I think that should be acknowledged. Jedistormtrooper0625 (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine and ICC update?

There is a lot of news around ICC and Palestine in the news we might need to update. Hoping someone following it would do so.--Inayity (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been adding updates to States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#Palestine. Right now we are just waiting to see how the UNSC responds as depositary to see if they become members. TDL (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has confirmed that Palestine will officially become a member of the International Criminal Court on 1 April 2015, the UN press office said on Wednesday.(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/palestine-member-international-criminal-court-un#) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.175.152 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There should be un update to the criticsm section on ICC targeting Israel while ignoring Hamas, Syria and China and the accusations of anti-Semitism of the ICC and Bensouda.96.81.123.61 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The ICC prosecutes individuals not countries, see International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine.Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That is what they claim, facts say otherwise.96.81.123.61 (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What facts?Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

limitations

"Limitations" section has NO CITATION. It really needs one.72.80.198.233 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a source now but I would argue that the limitations mentioned should fall under "criticism", as the ICC is not limited to investigating non-state actors but has been criticized for doing so in the past. Jananteeni (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Jananteeni

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Marloow.

— Assignment last updated by Marloow (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead adjusted to reasonable length

The lead was absurdly long. I've adjusted it by removing much of the content and relocating to 'operations' under 'history'. It's not the most elegant solution, but there are many problems with the structure of this article so it's a start at least. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Citations

Given recent news coverage, it is apparent that this court has become a significant topic of discussion. However, upon reading the article, it is evident that the citation style is inconsistent and there is a notice on the page acknowledging this. It would be helpful if established editors could lend a hand to address this issue. Having a consistent list of references would be beneficial for readers who want to explore the topic further outside of Wikipedia. Thanks :) Rootcragsar (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

Who gave the ICC jurisdiction? This is supposedly "covered in the article," though I find quite the opposite. This organization is unrecognized by most of the world's great powers (including the US, Israel, China, Russia). Light Millennia (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The ICC's jurisdiction is defined by the Rome Statute. Just because states are not members of the court does not necessarily mean they contest its jurisdiction. If you have a credible reference on the topic, it can always be incorporated into the article. – Zntrip 06:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The ICC claims global jurisdiction. A significant portion of the world has neigher signed and/or ratified the Rome Statute, nor recognized ICC jurisdiction by any other means. Don't you think the current version is a bit misleading? Furthermore, I could add citations of countries that explicitly oppose ICC jurisdiction (perhaps most notably the US), but that's a separate issue. Light Millennia (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The ICC does not 'claim global jurisdiction'. If a Russian person commits crimes against humanity in Russia, the ICC won't investigate or prosecute unless Russia (or the UN Security Council) explicitly grants it the authority to do so. The US can 'explicitly oppose' the ICC's jurisdiction all it likes, the ICC has never claimed to have any jurisdiction in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polemarchus (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As Polemarchus said, the ICC does not claim to have "global jurisdiction". The article has an entire section devoted to jurisdiction in which the limitations are accurately explained. – Zntrip 05:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Potato, potato. My point is that the ICC claims jurisdiction to prosecute suspects without the consent of the countries they're citizens of or the countries where the alleged crimes were committed (even though it might need UNSC "approval" in the latter case), and this article lede makes it seem like that claim is undisputed. Light Millennia (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. I believe that it is fair to include a sentence in the lead that lists several of the prominent critiques of the court. After all, there is an entire "Criticisms" section. How about this: The ICC has faced a number of criticisms from states and civil society, including questions about its jurisdiction, accusations of bias, the fairness of its case selection and trial procedures, and its effectiveness. – Zntrip 06:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'll add it now. Light Millennia (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I changed the word "questions" to "objections". Feel free to protest if you think it's a bad idea. Light Millennia (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

No objections (or questions) from me. – Zntrip 06:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice cooperation above. Happy to see it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have edited out the final sentence of 'Investigations and preliminary examinations'. It stated that the ICC had not commenced an inquiry into China because it required a UN Security Council referral. There was no such referral by the security council in respect of Russia, yet two Russian citizens have been indicted following an inquiry conducted into Russia's activities in Ukraine. Rather, the ICC chief prosecutor has simply said that a referral by ICC member states makes it easier for the ICC to investigate. This suggests that the initiation of inquries is at least part-political and not initiated nor prevented by a hard and fast rule. See also 'procedure' above. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-qc-situation-ukraine-receipt-referrals-39-states All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence you removed was not a correct statement of law, so it should be removed in my opinion. As stated in the jurisdiction section of the article, the court must have either territorial jurisdiction (place where crime occurs) or personal jurisdiction (nationality of perpetrator). The reason alleged crimes in China perpetrated by Chinese nationals cannot be investigated is because there is neither territorial nor personal jurisdictions exists. The reason alleged crimes in Ukraine perpetrated by Russian nationals can be investigated is because there is territorial jurisdiction. – Zntrip 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Judges, and Digital Literacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 13 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amulumudi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Amulumudi (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Article Bias

This article reads as if it were an established fact that the International Criminal Court was fundamentally racist and an instrument of neocolonialism, which is highly rhetorical and ultimately apologist.

Human rights abuses tend to become more likely the greater disparities there are between wealth and power, and, so, go figure.

As per the United States, the ICC has almost no capacity to do anything about any of their actions, as is also the case with Russia and China. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Request, add a simple to understand list of crimes the Court prosecutes

Hi all

I'm not sure the best place to put this but I think it would be a good addition to have a clear list of crimes the court prosecutes somewhere, currently there's no easy way for readers to understand this. Here are two documents which explain it

• https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
• https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/ElementsOfCrimesEng.pdf

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There already is a very clear list of crimes under the "Jurisdiction and admissibility" section of the article. – Zntrip 17:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Zntrip I've started a discussion below about reorganising that section to make it clearer for end users below. John Cummings (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Reorganising information in 'Jurisdiction and admissibility' to make it clearer for the reader

Hi all

Can I suggest the section 'Jurisdiction and admissibility' is reorganised? I don't think the title accurately describe the information contained within that section, and simpler language that a lay audience would understand would be more much more helpful. The second paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style states:

Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language and structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting

I think the information in 'Jurisdiction and admissibility'should be split into individual sections, I think this could be something like:

1. Process (I also think this section could be expanded significantly, there's lots of information missing from it, it also seems to be related to the proceedure section)
2. Crimes for which individuals can be prosecuted (using the word crimes would make it very clear and straighforward to the as per WP:MOS), this would include the lists of crimes the court investigates and prosecutes
3. Jurisdiction
4. Admissibility (or possibly combine with the above Jurisdiction section)

Also none of the information in this section is summarised in the introduction.

Just to note that there are some redirects and templates in this section which might be easy to break

Thanks very much John Cummings (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)