Russia withdraws from the International Criminal Court

[webfact]

Russia withdraws from the International Criminal Court

Catherine Hardy

 

 

MOSCOW: -- Russia says it is withdrawing its signature from the founding statute of the International Criminal Court.

 

Moscow signed the Statute of Rome in 2000 but never ratified it.

 

Officials are quoted as saying the Hague-based tribunal is not “truly independent” and has not lived up the hopes of the international community.
 

The court was set up to try those suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

“President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree outlining Russia’s intention to not be a member state of the Statute of Rome which established the International Criminal Court,” said Russia’s Foreign Ministry in a statement.

 

“We were never members of the ICC,” a ministry official told the AFP agency. “We signed the statute but have never ratified it. We are withdrawing our signature so the obligations linked to that will henceforth be withdrawn.”

 

Three African countries – Gambia, South Africa and Burundi – have recently announced their intention to withdraw from the ICC.

 

The US and China have never been members.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-11-17

[NeverSure]

48 minutes ago, webfact said:

The US and China have never been members.

 

And now Russia. People would do well to remember this before they talk about some higher authority they call "International Law." Whatever that may be it has no teeth. 

 

Cheers.

[simple1]

Unfortunately ICC investigations often have to be referred by the UN Security Council, so massive political interference making it's Charter extremely challenging. No surprise USA, China and now Russia (including some African countries) have declined to support the ICC.

 

"International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations. It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations."

 

 

Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct. This is an issue of state sovereignty. However, other aspects of international law are not consent-based but still are obligatory upon state and non-state actors such as customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

 

 

 

 

[Stargeezr]

Russia  already  has  a bunch of war criminals,  that  is also why  it withdrew.

Period.

Geezer

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Russia  already  has  a bunch of war criminals,  that  is also why  it withdrew.

Period.

Geezer

Very true, same as the US wants to keep it hands free.

[trogers]

They should do away with the UN, WTO and IMF as well...

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Very true, same as the US wants to keep it hands free.

Actually, that's not the reason.  Easy to research and find out the truth.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Actually, that's not the reason.  Easy to research and find out the truth.

 

There are pro / con arguments from a US POV. From a personal view can't see why the US would not fine tune certain provisions to enable the ideals of the Court to function, as countries do with other international Conventions / Treaties, including the US with other matters.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#American_criticism_and_support_of_the_ICC

.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by simple1

[Kerryd]

LoL - I had just wrote a comment on an article about the ICC investigating the US for alleged "war crimes" in Afghanistan yesterday and then today this comes out ! 

 

The ICC is a joke and and a total waste of time. Since it was founded in 1998 it has managed a grand total of EIGHT convictions ! 8 in 18 years ! And 6 of those 8 were just in 2016, including 4 in October alone ! That leaves 2 convictions in the 17 years previous (1 in 2012 and 1 in 2014) !

The ICC has (34 ?) judges, over 700 staff, and an annual budget of $166 million !! (Note: one article claims 34 judges but the ICC Wiki claims they have just 18.)

 

I just did a little research. In the 18 years since it was founded it has only managed to indict 39 people (all African) and has a grand total of just 10 investigations ongoing, 9 in Africa and 1 in Georgia.  There are also 10 "preliminary investigations" underway (sort of). The "preliminary investigation" in Afghanistan started in 2007 and 9 years later is in "stage 3".

 

The article I had commented on was about an ICC prosecutor claiming that the US Army and CIA "may have committed war crimes by torturing prisoners in Afghanistan". Interesting to note that the alleged offences supposedly occurred in 2003/04 but they are only now, 12-13 years later, considering opening an investigation. 

 

US bombs a hospital "by accident" in Afghanistan. No investigation.

US drone strike wipes out wedding party of innocent people. No investigation.

Russia "accidentally" bombs a hospital in Syria. No investigation.

Saudi Arabia "accidentally' bombs funeral in Yemen (140 dead, 600 injured). No investigation.

Taliban strap a bomb vest onto a mentally challenged child and send him into a crowded market before remote-detonating the vest (among many other "war crimes). No investigation.

Syria ? No investigations of anyone (including the "rebels") for anything.

ISIS ? No investigations of anyone for anything.

 

Of course there is the issue of jurisdiction in some cases. " The Court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems. It can exercise its jurisdiction only if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute." So apparently it can't investigate war crimes committed by ISIS. It can't investigate war crimes committed by the Syrian government (or the Syrian rebels) unless Syria's courts are unwilling or unable to investigate ? It can't investigate Saudi Arabia because the Saudi's are "looking into it" ? 

But it has somehow decided (in the mind of one prosecutor at least) that the US is "unwilling or unable" to investigate crimes it may have committed ? 

 

Note:  "Several states have contemplated withdrawing, arguing that it is a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states."

(Many African countries have threatened to withdraw from the ICC as well, noting that 9 of the 10 current investigations are in Africa and all 39 people indicted by the ICC are African.)

 

I found this on an ICC related page of the 39 people indicted by the ICC. It notes that these were the 4 convicted in October 2016 but despite being indicted on over 40 "war crime" charges each, they had been "provisionally released" (in different countries) less than a year after being indicted ! <deleted> ? I'm sure now that they have been convicted they will all show up at the nearest police station and turn themselves in.

Narcisse Arido	3	20 November 2013	—	—	—	43	18 March 2014	Convicted on 19 October 2016; awaiting sentence (provisionally released on 23 October 2014)
Fidèle Babala	3	20 November 2013	—	—	—	42	25 November 2013	Convicted on 19 October 2016; awaiting sentence (provisionally released on 23 October 2014)
Aimé Kilolo	3	20 November 2013	—	—	—	43	25 November 2013	Convicted on 19 October 2016; awaiting sentence (provisionally released on 23 October 2014)
Jean-Jacques Mangenda	3	20 November 2013	—	—	—	43	4 December 2013	Convicted on 19 October 2016; awaiting sentence (provisionally released on 31 October 2014)

Lofty ideals but the reality is that it is politically driven and controlled. The US even threatened to stop military (and other) aid to any country that ratified the treaty (the "Rome Statute") that created the ICC (exceptions allowed for some countries of course) !! In 2002 they even passed legislation authorizing the use of military force to free any US Military personnel being held by the ICC !

 

Many African states (again) threatened to withdraw "en masse" after the ICC indicted the leaders of Sudan and Kenya. In response, the ICC agreed to consider a list of amendments to the Rome Statute including one that would provide immunity to state leaders (like the ones the ICC had just indicted). Another proposed amendment would allow states to charge ICC members with "crimes against the administration of justice" !! (That would allow them to charge any ICC official that tries to investigate or indict anyone that the "state" in question doesn't want to have investigated or indicted !)

 

Some countries signed the treaty and then withdrew from it, like Turkey, because they were worried it might prevent them from dealing with the Kurd separatists in their country. The ICC was meant to prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and "crimes against humanity" so it makes you wonder what Turkey was planning on doing that it wanted to avoid being under ICC jurisdiction.

Iraq signed the treaty and then, a mere 2 weeks later, withdrew. It is rumoured that the US made that happen.

 

Look at some of the countries that never signed or signed but haven't ratified the treaty. China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, The Vatican (!), the USA, Israel, Iran, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Sudan and Thailand to name just a few ! That's nearly 3/4s of the population of the planet right there. Add to that Russia (now). There are 39 countries that signed but never ratified the treaty and 42 that never signed at all.  Counting Russia, 4 countries have announced they are withdrawing from the ICC since October. 

 

I suspect more than a few people are making a pretty good living from the ICC. Not sure why the "powers that be" haven't simply canned it as it doesn't seem to be worth the cost involved. Keep in mind too that Slobodan Milošević was tried by the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity in Kosovo. He was indicted in 1999 and the trial started in 2002 and the ICC had not a single thing to do with it. The same Tribunal also indicted (1995) and (eventually) tried (in 2012) Ratko Mladić for his actions during the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the early 90's.

 

The role of the ICC was not only to complement the justice systems of it's member countries and prosecute those that couldn't be prosecuted by those same systems, it was meant to be a deterrent to world leaders that may be contemplating committing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

 

It has pretty much failed to live up to any of it's roles.

 

[JuanCarlos]

19 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

LoL - I had just wrote a comment on an article about the ICC investigating the US for alleged "war crimes" in Afghanistan yesterday and then today this comes out ! 

 

The ICC is a joke and and a total waste of time. Since it was founded in 1998 it has managed a grand total of EIGHT convictions ! 8 in 18 years ! And 6 of those 8 were just in 2016, including 4 in October alone ! That leaves 2 convictions in the 17 years previous (1 in 2012 and 1 in 2014) !

The ICC has (34 ?) judges, over 700 staff, and an annual budget of $166 million !! (Note: one article claims 34 judges but the ICC Wiki claims they have just 18.)

 

I just did a little research. In the 18 years since it was founded it has only managed to indict 39 people (all African) and has a grand total of just 10 investigations ongoing, 9 in Africa and 1 in Georgia.  There are also 10 "preliminary investigations" underway (sort of). The "preliminary investigation" in Afghanistan started in 2007 and 9 years later is in "stage 3".

 

The article I had commented on was about an ICC prosecutor claiming that the US Army and CIA "may have committed war crimes by torturing prisoners in Afghanistan". Interesting to note that the alleged offences supposedly occurred in 2003/04 but they are only now, 12-13 years later, considering opening an investigation. 

 

US bombs a hospital "by accident" in Afghanistan. No investigation.

US drone strike wipes out wedding party of innocent people. No investigation.

Russia "accidentally" bombs a hospital in Syria. No investigation.

Saudi Arabia "accidentally' bombs funeral in Yemen (140 dead, 600 injured). No investigation.

Taliban strap a bomb vest onto a mentally challenged child and send him into a crowded market before remote-detonating the vest (among many other "war crimes). No investigation.

Syria ? No investigations of anyone (including the "rebels") for anything.

ISIS ? No investigations of anyone for anything.

 

Of course there is the issue of jurisdiction in some cases. " The Court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems. It can exercise its jurisdiction only if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute." So apparently it can't investigate war crimes committed by ISIS. It can't investigate war crimes committed by the Syrian government (or the Syrian rebels) unless Syria's courts are unwilling or unable to investigate ? It can't investigate Saudi Arabia because the Saudi's are "looking into it" ? 

But it has somehow decided (in the mind of one prosecutor at least) that the US is "unwilling or unable" to investigate crimes it may have committed ? 

 

Note:  "Several states have contemplated withdrawing, arguing that it is a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states."

(Many African countries have threatened to withdraw from the ICC as well, noting that 9 of the 10 current investigations are in Africa and all 39 people indicted by the ICC are African.)

 

I found this on an ICC related page of the 39 people indicted by the ICC. It notes that these were the 4 convicted in October 2016 but despite being indicted on over 40 "war crime" charges each, they had been "provisionally released" (in different countries) less than a year after being indicted ! <deleted> ? I'm sure now that they have been convicted they will all show up at the nearest police station and turn themselves in.

Narcisse Arido	3	20 November 2013	—	—	—	43	18 March 2014	Convicted on 19 October 2016; awaiting sentence (provisionally released on 23 October 2014)
Fidèle Babala	3	20 November 2013	—	—	—	42	25 November 2013	Convicted on 19 October 2016; awaiting sentence (provisionally released on 23 October 2014)
Aimé Kilolo	3	20 November 2013	—	—	—	43	25 November 2013	Convicted on 19 October 2016; awaiting sentence (provisionally released on 23 October 2014)
Jean-Jacques Mangenda	3	20 November 2013	—	—	—	43	4 December 2013	Convicted on 19 October 2016; awaiting sentence (provisionally released on 31 October 2014)

Lofty ideals but the reality is that it is politically driven and controlled. The US even threatened to stop military (and other) aid to any country that ratified the treaty (the "Rome Statute") that created the ICC (exceptions allowed for some countries of course) !! In 2002 they even passed legislation authorizing the use of military force to free any US Military personnel being held by the ICC !

 

Many African states (again) threatened to withdraw "en masse" after the ICC indicted the leaders of Sudan and Kenya. In response, the ICC agreed to consider a list of amendments to the Rome Statute including one that would provide immunity to state leaders (like the ones the ICC had just indicted). Another proposed amendment would allow states to charge ICC members with "crimes against the administration of justice" !! (That would allow them to charge any ICC official that tries to investigate or indict anyone that the "state" in question doesn't want to have investigated or indicted !)

 

Some countries signed the treaty and then withdrew from it, like Turkey, because they were worried it might prevent them from dealing with the Kurd separatists in their country. The ICC was meant to prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and "crimes against humanity" so it makes you wonder what Turkey was planning on doing that it wanted to avoid being under ICC jurisdiction.

Iraq signed the treaty and then, a mere 2 weeks later, withdrew. It is rumoured that the US made that happen.

 

Look at some of the countries that never signed or signed but haven't ratified the treaty. China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, The Vatican (!), the USA, Israel, Iran, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Sudan and Thailand to name just a few ! That's nearly 3/4s of the population of the planet right there. Add to that Russia (now). There are 39 countries that signed but never ratified the treaty and 42 that never signed at all.  Counting Russia, 4 countries have announced they are withdrawing from the ICC since October. 

 

I suspect more than a few people are making a pretty good living from the ICC. Not sure why the "powers that be" haven't simply canned it as it doesn't seem to be worth the cost involved. Keep in mind too that Slobodan Milošević was tried by the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity in Kosovo. He was indicted in 1999 and the trial started in 2002 and the ICC had not a single thing to do with it. The same Tribunal also indicted (1995) and (eventually) tried (in 2012) Ratko Mladić for his actions during the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the early 90's.

 

The role of the ICC was not only to complement the justice systems of it's member countries and prosecute those that couldn't be prosecuted by those same systems, it was meant to be a deterrent to world leaders that may be contemplating committing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

 

It has pretty much failed to live up to any of it's roles.

 

Look at some of the countries that never signed or signed but haven't ratified the treaty. China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, The Vatican (!), the USA, Israel, Iran, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Sudan and Thailand to name just a few ! 

 

This list also highlight the great countries they are and their commitment to peace, equality, corruption, human rights....

[Grubster]

2 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Russia  already  has  a bunch of war criminals,  that  is also why  it withdrew.

Period.

Geezer

And so does the USA.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Actually, that's not the reason.  Easy to research and find out the truth.

Sorry, you're wrong. I'll admit that the official reason may differ though.

[craigt3365]

30 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Sorry, you're wrong. I'll admit that the official reason may differ though.

You are right!  I was thinking of something else.  Extradition treaties. Sorry!!!!

[Kerryd]

1 hour ago, JuanCarlos said:

Look at some of the countries that never signed or signed but haven't ratified the treaty. China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, The Vatican (!), the USA, Israel, Iran, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Sudan and Thailand to name just a few ! 

 

This list also highlight the great countries they are and their commitment to peace, equality, corruption, human rights....

 

True enough, the list of those the didn't sign/ratify is full of some of the worst offenders, just like the countries that make up the UN's Human Rights Commission. Signing/ratifying that treaty would be akin to tying the noose, slipping it over your own neck, then standing on a chair that has only a single, broken leg left and daring someone to kick it.

 

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, NeverSure said:

 

And now Russia. People would do well to remember this before they talk about some higher authority they call "International Law." Whatever that may be it has no teeth. 

 

Cheers.

Yes they did a wonderful job in declaring that China could not take over the South China Sea and of course the honorable person that he is Mr Xi thumbed his nose at the decision. This is the kind of country you want to trade with and invest in?? Beware!!

[elgordo38]

4 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Russia  already  has  a bunch of war criminals,  that  is also why  it withdrew.

Period.

Geezer

No your wrong. The International Criminal Court would not allow water boarding. Mr. Putin has his own internal criminal system. If he does not like you he gives you a nuclear sleeping pill. Bon voyage

[elgordo38]

Russia and China truly amaze me. They want to trade with the world and have the world invest in their countries. If your truly daring enough to invest in these two "democracies" you deserve to get stung. 

[JuanCarlos]

7 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

Russia and China truly amaze me. They want to trade with the world and have the world invest in their countries. If your truly daring enough to invest in these two "democracies" you deserve to get stung. 

And yet the world invest in China in a way or another:USA, EU,...

Edited November 17, 2016 by JuanCarlos

[elgordo38]

Just now, JuanCarlos said:

And yet the world invest in China in a way or another

Youse pays your money youse takes your chances. 

[coma]

Amazing how three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the veto powers that comes with it, don't want anything to do with the International Criminal Court. What does that tell the rest of the world ??

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Sorry, you're wrong. I'll admit that the official reason may differ though.

Having read up on this a bit just now, it's a complicated mess!  These guys seem to be in the mix:

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/the-us-should-not-join-the-international-criminal-court

[Morch]

5 hours ago, trogers said:

They should do away with the UN, WTO and IMF as well...

 

And revert to which means of coordinating global diplomatic relations?

[trogers]

54 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And revert to which means of coordinating global diplomatic relations?

 

We now have video and chat apps 24/7 on our hands

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, trogers said:

 

We now have video and chat apps 24/7 on our hands

 

These are communication gadgets, not a system of framework of addressing global issues among countries.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Morch

[trogers]

These apps allow conferencing while in lying in bed at home...

 

Networking electronically.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

[Kerryd]

Now the Philippines is threatening to withdraw from the ICC as well (which it only joined in 2011). (Philippines' Duterte says may follow Russia's withdrawal from 'useless' ICC)

Apparently Duterte is upset that some ICC prosecutor has stated that the ICC may have jurisdiction to go after the perpetrators of the killings in the drug war where 2,400(+) people have been killed (so far).

 

As Duterte noted "They are useless, those in the international criminal (court). They (Russia) withdrew. I might follow. Why? Only the small ones like us are battered."

 

Might be a wise move on his part as the ICC is probably bruised by the allegations that they only go after Africans while ignoring everyone else. Maybe that's why the ICC made the announcement recently regarding "alleged war crimes" that may have been committed by Americans in Afghanistan 13 years ago, and about the "drug war" killings in the Philippines.

 

They won't go after the US of course, that's all just "chest puffing bluster" to make themselves feel like they are relevant. Half (or more) of Asia hasn't signed on or ratified the Rome Statute either (probably to avoid being targeted by the ICC as well). Any attempt to prosecute Duterte could result in other Asian nations withdrawing as well.

The bluster about the Philippines is probably meant to deflect attention by making it look like they are investigating countries/leaders outside of Africa. I don't think Duterte will be too concerned either way. It seems the ICC can't handle the workload it already has, with a whopping 10 investigations underway (including 1 that isn't in Africa) !

Better slow those 18(+) judges down ! With the 4 convictions they managed last October, they are now averaging just under .45 convictions per year over the 18 years since the ICC was founded ! Not to mention that Duterte would probably die of extremely old age before the ICC even finished a preliminary investigation any ways.

 

Note: The ICC won't be looking at Thaksin because Thailand hasn't ratified the Rome Statute so the ICC has no jurisdiction. 

"For an individual to be prosecuted by the Court either territorial jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction must exist. Therefore, an individual can only be prosecuted if he or she has either (1) committed a crime within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court or (2) committed a crime while a national of a state that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court."

 

"Former Senator Kraisak Choonhavan called in November 2006 for Thailand to ratify the Rome Statute and to accept retrospective jurisdiction, so that former premier Thaksin Shinawatra could be investigated for crimes against humanity connected to 2,500 alleged extrajudicial killings carried out in 2003 against suspected drug dealers."

 

Of course, ratifying the treaty would open up numerous other people to possibly being investigated so that's never going to happen.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Kerryd
Edited for grammar, clarity and because I felt like it !

[Credo]

I think the only way the ICC can save itself is if it adopts Sharia Law.  That might see a change in who is interested in joining.   

[coma]

MANILA, Philippines—Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said Thursday he might follow Russia’s example and withdraw from the International Criminal Court

Mr. Duterte also said the United Nations has been useless in stopping wars. He said if China and Russia decide to create a new world order, he would be the first to join them and leave the U.N., which he said was dominated by the U.S

 

http://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2016/11/philippines-duterte-threatens-to-follow.html

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, coma said:

MANILA, Philippines—Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said Thursday he might follow Russia’s example and withdraw from the International Criminal Court

Mr. Duterte also said the United Nations has been useless in stopping wars. He said if China and Russia decide to create a new world order, he would be the first to join them and leave the U.N., which he said was dominated by the U.S

 

http://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2016/11/philippines-duterte-threatens-to-follow.html

I do believe an international court just ruled in their favor?  This guy is just a loud mouth.  Luckily, it's not 100% up to him what the PI does.