Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Would they be bothered that much though. The UN isn't much really is it

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Yes they would. It would never happen (Xacc's suggestion that is).

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

The UN would supercede it, purely because it was formed first, and being world-wide, it considers itself all powerful. The whole point I was trying to make though, is that the building is UN, not NATO, so NATO shouldn't come into it.

About the Dutch response: If it was me, i'd turn to the UN and ask them what to do. If they want me to try and stop them, as suicidal as that sounds i'd mobilise the Dutch forces against them. Otherwise, if the UN wouldn't care, what is the point in risk lives, wasting resources, etc.

I never (or never meant to rather) cast aspersions upon the Dutch and i'm raiding the previous pages to try and find how/where I got dragged into it (you seemed to think I was in post #61, but I honestly wasn't/cant see it). The only thing I rememeber trying to say was the the ICC is UN controlled, not NATO. Hence it wouldn't be the US vs NATO, it would be US vs UN (which would be 190 countries). Like I said, u'm sorry if you thought I was, but it was not intentional.

But yeah, it is academic. If we know about the US policy to American war criminals in the ICC, then i'm sure the bloody UN should (although wouldn't suprise if they didn't), so this kind of thing would get headed off before this stage. And anyway, if the US didn't sign up to it, then I don't suppose the UN can legally hold any Americans anyway.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Although this lawyer is apparently going to represent Saddam in his war crimes trial in Iraq, the story does not actually say that the lawyer is suing the UK on behalf of Saddam - the story says:

So, he does not appear to be doing this for Saddam - he just happens to also be Saddams lawyer (well, he claims to be. Others have also said they are going to represent Saddam.).

So it isn't really a case of "Saddam to sue UK" as far as I can tell. (Plus the actual story is titled "Saddam lawyer to sue UK" and not "Saddam to sue UK".)

IMO, this guy is probably just doing this for publicity.


Also, this will not be the first time that someone has attempted to go after the UK for war crimes - & it probably will not be the last.

IIRC, there was at least one other case recently where someone was trying to get the UK done for war crimes at the ICC.

Plus, the ICC only has jurisdiction if the accused country has made no effort to investigate (& if necessary prosecute) the allegations itself. So if the UK carried out its own investigation/inquiry/whatever then it would be safe from the same charges being brought at the ICC.


From: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh86.htm

And we already know that the Government has said that the prisoner abuse allegations etc *are* being investigated. Plus, from the Sky story:

So I think the UK is most likely safe from this lawyer's attempt to sue it.





The US signed the treaty setting up the ICC, in the last days of the Clinton Administration.

However, the Bush Administration, in power soon after, plus the Republican-dominated Congress, were vehemently opposed to the ICC - and consequently the ICC treaty was never ratified by the US.

But, although the US never ratified the treaty, it still came into force in July 2002 once the 60th nation had ratified it - which meant that the US would have been under its jurisdiction anyway, despite not ratifying it itself.

And so the US subsequently used threats & bribery to obtain itself immunity from the ICC (as per the story link downquark posted) - immunity for its peacekeepers via a UN Security Council resolution, & immunity from various other countries via bilateral deals.

So the US is safe from the ICC with respect to anything it does in Iraq: because a) the US has got immunity and b) Iraq never even signed the Treaty, let alone ratified it.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I thought it was only immunity for it's soldiers whilst on peacekeeping duties for the UN, but they aren't peacekeeping for the UN in Iraq.
So is it definitely all US forces that are immune?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Not all.

It goes something like this:

- The UNSC resolution mentioned earlier gives US peacekeepers immunity.


- US forces have immunity in/from various countries due to bilateral deals with those countries' governments.


- The entire US forces in Iraq are effectively immune because Iraq has never signed the ICC treaty *and* because the US has "unsigned" the ICC treaty (something apparently completely unprecedented - a US President "unsigning" a treaty which a previous President signed):

For the ICC to have jurisdiction over the US forces in Iraq, a case must either be referred to the ICC by the Security Council (but the US would just veto it) -or- it must have been committed in a nation which has accepted the ICC (but Iraq hasn't) -or- it must have been committed by a citizen(s) of a nation which has accepted the ICC (but the US hasn't).


Therefore, US forces in Iraq are effectively immune from the ICC.

But not US forces everywhere.

The ICC could still have jurisdiction over US forces (not peacekeepers) over acts committed in other countries: but *only* countries which have signed up to the ICC, and even then it would *only* be ones which have not made a bilateral deal with the US re the ICC.


Lots of info here:

http://www.usaforicc.org/

http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_index.html

http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_faqs.html

http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths.html

and....

specific bit about Iraq:

http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/factsheets/iraq.html