Saddam To Sue Uk

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by danielf

I suppose it wouldn't qualify as an invasion, but I think they'd be in serious trouble with the UN.

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

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Defiant

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

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

[punky]

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.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Defiant

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...135099,00.html


I think we all know why he's trying this on with Britain and not the US. Everyone knows were the softest country in the world now. I do think its funny that it just happens to be a French lawyer too

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:

Saddam Hussein's lawyer is set to file a suit for war crimes against Britain at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Veteran French lawyer Jacques Verges says the lawsuit is on behalf of "the families of prisoners of the coalition in which Britain participates".

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

In particular, the Court may act only when national systems are unable or unwilling to carry out investigations or prosecutions of the crimes within the Courtââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s jurisdiction. Thus, even after establishment of the International Criminal Court, States will remain primarily responsible for the investigation and prosecution of international crimes.

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

The military is currently compiling courts martial cases.

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

Originally Posted by towny

I don't think they have been granted anything, they just refuse to accept the authority of a permanent War Crimes court as they feared they would fall victim to politically-motivated prosecutions.

I wonder if there is another reason why they won't accept the authority of a war crimes court?

Originally Posted by downquark1

Would that explain why we are being sued and not the US? I would have thought the evidence against them would be stronger.

According to this they have or did have immunity: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...974968,00.html

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.

[Xaccers]

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?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

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

The International Criminal Court:
In response to tyrants like Saddam Hussein, the international community has established a permanent court that can try perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, when their own countries cannot or will not. Now with 90 member countries, the ICC has jurisdiction over atrocities committed since July 1, 2002. Because the UN Security Council can refer a case to the ICC, even when the countries involved have not ratified the ICC treaty, the ICC can become an important diplomatic tool.

The Iraq War and the ICC:
Without a Security Council referral, the ICC has jurisdiction only over crimes committed on the soil of an ICC member state, or by a national of a member state, unless a country specifically accepts ICC jurisdiction over a situation. Because neither Iraq nor the United States has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, war crimes allegedly committed on Iraqi soil by U.S. or Iraqi citizens cannot be investigated or prosecuted by the Court without a Security Council referral.

U.S. allies, however, are members of the ICC, including all 15 European Union countries, 16 of our 18 fellow members of NATO, and all but one of the seven new NATO candidates. Leaders of these countries have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the ICC. They are confident that allegations of systematic and widespread acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes can be handled by their domestic courts, thereby restricting the ICC's need and ability to pursue charges. Our allies have committed themselves to enforcing the most basic, minimum standards of human rights - shouldn't we?

(snip)