Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
web page
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court goes into force today, establishing for the first time a permanent institution for investigating and judging people accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The court, which will begin operating from The Hague next year, will have the authority to judge individuals, based on complaints made to it by governments or the UN Security Council.
At the end of 2000, Israel signed the Rome Statute, thus expressing its support, in principle, for the international court. Yesterday, the government decided not to ratify its signature, and not to join the countries that have ratified their membership in the court. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon opposed a suggestion that Israel's decision not to ratify its membership, be termed "as of now."
Under the existing political and diplomatic circumstances, the government's decision appears to be correct. The international criminal court is based on fundamentally good intentions, but Israel cannot rely on good intentions alone and believe it will win a fair trial. Israel's cumulative bad experience in many international organizations, in which it was left alone opposite an "automatic majority" for Palestinian and Arab proposals, raises concerns that this new institution will also be tainted with politics, yet another international body where Israel is the whipping boy.
The development of international law is not as rapid as the changes in wars and conflicts. If, in the past, most wars were conducted between states, terror now stands at the top of the list of threats to security and stability in the world. But the Rome Statute completely ignores the problem of terrorism, and did not include terror on the list of crimes to be judged by the International Criminal Court, because of the difficulty of defining terrorism and terrorists.
But under pressure from the Arab states, the statute determines that "transferring population to occupied territory" is a war crime, and that article now is apparently threatening to yield suits against the settlements. That approach must be rejected. The solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict is to be found on the political plane, and the fate of the settlements should be determined around the negotiating table and not in a courtroom.
It is good that this issue was brought to the public's attention by the heads of the legal establishment. Even if it appears to be only a remote possibility that Israelis will be brought to trial at The Hague, knowing that they do not have immunity could restrain them from brutal and exaggerated behavior, and require the state authorities and security forces to take civil and human rights and international law even more seriously.
Nonetheless, the fears that Israeli leaders, officials and army officers are at risk of arrest and international trial because of what Israel does in the territories, appear to be exaggerated. The new institution does not have jurisdiction over the West Bank and Gaza, which are not part of a sovereign state. Presumably, the U.S., which is in principle against the International Criminal Court, will not allow the UN Security Council to put Israel on the defendants' bench. The Belgian court's decision last week to throw out the complaint against Sharon in the matter of Sabra and Chatila, proved the limits of "the globalization of criminal law."
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
