tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post582593478276820076..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Terrorism and the International Criminal CourtAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-71377662397686518942008-12-17T21:51:00.000+05:302008-12-17T21:51:00.000+05:30We often forget that genocide is not the only crim...We often forget that genocide is not the only crime within the ambit of the ICC - 'crimes against humanity' is (relatively) easier to prove, and carries similar moral and punitive force.Tarunabh Khaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07234574402062317396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-10969758355250057232008-12-17T18:52:00.000+05:302008-12-17T18:52:00.000+05:30"When the question of genocide arose the African n..."When the question of genocide arose the African nations (OAU) took a stand that what had happened in Sudan was not genocide"<BR/><BR/>In fact there are extremely strong arguments that the Sudan events were not genocide. And this is a view taken by a UN Expert group too, not just the OAU. The issue turns on the legal question of the dolus specialis requirement for the mens rea in genocide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-16828135877102983222008-12-17T12:10:00.000+05:302008-12-17T12:10:00.000+05:30I am not so optimistic.When the question of genoci...I am not so optimistic.When the question of genocide arose the African nations (OAU) took a stand that what had happened in Sudan was not genocide.ICC can be used for political purposes against India to divert the attention from the real issue of Pakistan and cross-border terrorism.<BR/>' An ICC summon to Pakistan to hand over Dawood wil certainly put pressure on Pakistan. It will then have the option of prosecuting him itself, or extraditing him to India for prosecution or hand him over to the ICC. '<BR/>What happens if ICC declines<BR/>to issue a summon or is not satisfied with the case against<BR/>him.? I wonder whether ICC is the right forum for cases against Dawood. I think it is not.Taking his case to ICC will complicate the matters.ரவி ஸ்ரீநிவாஸ்https://www.blogger.com/profile/10176389904737294055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-26772123227904784332008-12-17T03:05:00.000+05:302008-12-17T03:05:00.000+05:30Dear Anonymous, UK has signed the Statute, US has ...Dear Anonymous, UK has signed the Statute, US has not. It has jurisdiction only when the crimes are committed either by a citizen/resident of a member state or on the territory of the member state. So states of the victims have no jurisdiction. <BR/><BR/>Dear Rohit, please allow me to clarify a few things about the ICC. First, it is not a US-driven body - in fact the US has opposed it tooth and nail. Secondly, its jurisdiction is complimentary - i.e. it kicks in ONLY when the concerned state is 'unable or unwilling' to prosecute. So, no sovereignty is ceded, unless you think that India will ever be in a situation to be unable or unwilling to prosecute people who have committed ghastly crimes. Thirdly, I know that international law is often made fun of. However, it has its uses. As soft law instruments, national courts can draw upon treaties a country has signed. But even so, the ISS is a different animal - it is a relatively powerful criminal court (by international law standards). Plus, international law and international diplomacy often go hand in hand. An ICC summon to Pakistan to hand over Dawood wil certainly put pressure on Pakistan. It will then have the option of prosecuting him itself, or extraditing him to India for prosecution or hand him over to the ICC. Of course, it can choose to do nothing - but not without some political costs. The ICC is having its first big evaluatory conference next year. India's can at least try to bargain its membership by encouraging the ICC to finally define 'terrorism' (it is likely to happen anyway, with or without India).<BR/><BR/>Finally, these arguments in favour of India joining the ICC are only strategic. There is a far stronger moral case on the basis of which India should have signed it long ago.<BR/><BR/>Will it solve the problem or terrorism? Of course not. Will it be a humane and principled, if small, response to the problem? Certainly. Perhaps my argument is still naive. In that case, please suffer my optimism :)Tarunabh Khaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07234574402062317396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-71410909988723754302008-12-16T21:17:00.000+05:302008-12-16T21:17:00.000+05:30Tarun,With all due respect, who gives a damn about...Tarun,<BR/><BR/>With all due respect, who gives a damn about ICC? What exact mechanism has it to punish people unless Americans or British want them punished. In case you forget, Americans did not know even care about terrorism in India before 9/11 happened. Or British were giving shelter to those accused of crimes in Punjab in name of preserving human rights. It was only after they got hit, terror became an issues. I am surprised at the extreme naivety displayed on this post when it comes giving up our right to prosecute and punish those who attack us. <BR/><BR/>And with all due respect to CJI, to pontificate on things like Hot Pursuit is above his pay grade.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-30603216034798316932008-12-16T20:08:00.000+05:302008-12-16T20:08:00.000+05:30I am not quite sure of scope of ICC; but the fact ...I am not quite sure of scope of ICC; but the fact that citizens of UK and US have also been killed will give a right to those countries to take the matter to ICC?<BR/><BR/>(I am not quite certain if US/UK have agreed to be bound by ICC)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com