Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Universal Jurisdiction


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Universal Jurisdiction Page: [1]
[Poll]

Universal Jurisdiction


Yes: I favor The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction
  13% (2)
No: I stand opposed to Universal Jurisdiction
  86% (13)


Total Votes : 15


(last vote on : 2/14/2014 4:08:13 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Universal Jurisdiction - 2/11/2014 8:43:23 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

''The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction,'' represents a coming of age for the idea of international justice. The document aims to settle procedure about when and how a court in one country can try a foreign national for crimes committed in another.

Among its conclusions: war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, piracy, slavery, crimes against peace and torture are the seven deadly sins that automatically qualify for universal jurisdiction.

But wherever it takes place, the trial must conform to international norms of due process and human rights. No one can be tried in absentia. The accused can't stand trial twice for the same crime. No one can claim immunity from prosecution for crimes of this magnitude -- not former heads of state, not those suspected of crimes committed many years in the past, not even, in some cases, those who have been granted amnesty by the government of the country where they committed the crime.

------

Comments invited.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/11/2014 9:32:55 PM   
DaNewAgeViking


Posts: 1009
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
Yes, well the problem with that is there are a great many American public leaders who could be brought up on serious charges if something like this came to be. Actually it would be a good thing if our leadership (so-called) felt the need to look over their shoulder now and then, but realistically it will never happen. For that matter, if it did come to pass, who has the power to bring American war criminals to justice, and make it stick? File this one under 'Good Ideas'.



< Message edited by DaNewAgeViking -- 2/11/2014 9:33:07 PM >

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/11/2014 9:41:16 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
''The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction,'' represents a coming of age for the idea of international justice. The document aims to settle procedure about when and how a court in one country can try a foreign national for crimes committed in another.
Among its conclusions: war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, piracy, slavery, crimes against peace and torture are the seven deadly sins that automatically qualify for universal jurisdiction.
But wherever it takes place, the trial must conform to international norms of due process and human rights. No one can be tried in absentia. The accused can't stand trial twice for the same crime. No one can claim immunity from prosecution for crimes of this magnitude -- not former heads of state, not those suspected of crimes committed many years in the past, not even, in some cases, those who have been granted amnesty by the government of the country where they committed the crime.
------
Comments invited.


Just posting a link to the Principles. Will be back after reading the 60+ pages and doing some digesting.

http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/unive_jur.pdf


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/12/2014 2:26:05 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
''The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction,'' represents a coming of age for the idea of international justice. The document aims to settle procedure about when and how a court in one country can try a foreign national for crimes committed in another.
Among its conclusions: war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, piracy, slavery, crimes against peace and torture are the seven deadly sins that automatically qualify for universal jurisdiction.
But wherever it takes place, the trial must conform to international norms of due process and human rights. No one can be tried in absentia. The accused can't stand trial twice for the same crime. No one can claim immunity from prosecution for crimes of this magnitude -- not former heads of state, not those suspected of crimes committed many years in the past, not even, in some cases, those who have been granted amnesty by the government of the country where they committed the crime.
------
Comments invited.

Just posting a link to the Principles. Will be back after reading the 60+ pages and doing some digesting.
http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/unive_jur.pdf


The seven deadly sins serious crimes:

  • Piracy - Defined
      quote:

      Article 15
      Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
        (1) Any illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
          (a) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
          (b) Against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

        (2) Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts
        making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
        (3) Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph 1 or subparagraph 2 of
        this article.

  • Slavery - Defined
      quote:

      SECTION I
      INSTITUTIONS AND PRACTICES SIMILAR TO SLAVERY

      Article 1

      Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926:
        (a) Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;
        (b) Serfdom, that is to say, the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;
        (c) Any institution or practice whereby:
          (i) A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group; or
          (ii) The husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has the right to transfer her to another person for value received or otherwise; or
          (iii) A woman on the death of her husband is liable to be inherited by another person;

        (d) Any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour.


      Article 2
      With a view to bringing to an end the institutions and practices mentioned in article 1 (c) of this Convention, the States Parties undertake to prescribe, where appropriate, suitable minimum ages of marriage, to encourage the use of facilities whereby the consent of both parties to a marriage may be freely expressed in the presence of a competent civil or religious authority, and to encourage the registration of marriages.

      SECTION II
      THE SLAVE TRADE

      Article 3

      1. The act of conveying or attempting to convey slaves from one country to another by whatever means of transport, or of being accessory thereto, shall be a criminal offence under the laws of the States Parties to this Convention and persons convicted thereof shall be liable to very severe penalties.
      2. (a) The States Parties shall take all effective measures to prevent ships and aircraft authorized to fly their flags from conveying slaves and to punish persons guilty of such acts or of using national flags for that purpose.
      (b) The States Parties shall take all effective measures to ensure that their ports, airfields and coasts are not used for the conveyance of slaves.
      3. The States Parties to this Convention shall exchange information in order to ensure the practical co-ordination of the measures taken by them in combating the slave trade and shall inform each other of every case of the slave trade, and of every attempt to commit this criminal offence, which comes to their notice.

      Article 4
      Any slave who takes refuge on board any vessel of a State Party to this Convention shall ipso facto be free.

      SECTION III
      SLAVERY AND INSTITUTIONS AND PRACTICES SIMILAR TO SLAVERY

      Article 5

      In a country where the abolition or abandonment of slavery, or of the institutions or practices mentioned in article I of this Convention, is not yet complete, the act of mutilating, branding or otherwise marking a slave or a person of servile status in order to indicate his status, or as a punishment, or for any other reason, or of being accessory thereto, shall be a criminal offence under the laws of the States Parties to this Convention and persons convicted thereof shall be liable to punishment.

      Article 6
      1. The act of enslaving another person or of inducing another person to give himself or a person dependent upon him into slavery, or of attempting these acts, or being accessory thereto, or being a party to a conspiracy to accomplish any such acts, shall be a criminal offence under the laws of the States Parties to this Convention and persons convicted thereof shall be liable to punishment.
      2. Subject to the provisions of the introductory paragraph of article 1 of this Convention, the provisions of paragraph 1 of the present article shall also apply to the act of inducing another person to place himself or a person dependent upon him into the servile status resulting from any of the institutions or practices mentioned in article 1, to any attempt to perform such acts, to bring accessory thereto, and to being a party to a conspiracy to accomplish any such acts.

  • War Crimes - Defined (Way too long to list here.)
  • Crimes Against Peace - Defined
      quote:

      Article 6.
      The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

      The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
        (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

  • Crimes Against Humanity - Defined
      quote:

      Article 7
      Crimes against humanity
        1. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
          (a) Murder;
          (b) Extermination;
          (c) Enslavement;
          (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
          (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
          (f) Torture;
          (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
          (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
          (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
          (j) The crime of apartheid;
          (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

        2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
          (a) ‘Attack directed against any civilian population’ means a course of conduct
          involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
          (b) ‘Extermination’ includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
          (c) ‘Enslavement’ means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
          (d) ‘Deportation or forcible transfer of population’ means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
          (e) ‘Torture’ means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
          (f) ‘Forced pregnancy’ means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;
          (g) ‘Persecution’ means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
          (h) ‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
          (i) ‘Enforced disappearance of persons’ means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

        3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term ‘gender’ refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term ‘gender’ does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

  • Genocide - Defined
      quote:

      Article 2
      In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
        (a) Killing members of the group;
        (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
        (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
        (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
        (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

  • Torture -Defined
      quote:

      PART I

      Article 1

      1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
      2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.


    I'm not sure who could argue against any of those definitions, or in the inclusion of those crimes. Other crimes were considered (ie. Apartheid, terrorism, and drug crimes), but were not included. Apartheid is included in the definition of slavery, so it being considered separately is interesting. I would have to think that "terrorism" would fall under "Crimes against Peace" at the very least, if not "Crimes Against Humanity," and/or "War Crimes." The authors of the Princeton Principles did acknowledge that their list is not necessarily closed to further inclusions, so "Drug Crimes" may eventually be defined within.

    A bit of a warning from the Princeton Principles:
      quote:

      All legal powers can be abused by willfully malicious individuals. The Princeton Principles do all that principles can do to guard against such abuses: they specify the considerations that conscientious international actors can and should act upon.


    An area of question:
      quote:

      Principle 4 - Obligation to Support Accountability
      1. A state shall comply with all international obligations that are applicable to: prosecuting or extraditing persons accused or convicted of crimes under international law in accordance with a legal process that complies with international due process norms, providing other states investigating or prosecuting such crimes with all available means of administrative and judicial assistance, and undertaking such other necessary and appropriate measures as are consistent with international norms and standards


    It's almost a forced extradition compliance. Principle 10 has two provisions for the grounds on refusing to extradite.

    My biggest concern is in the abuse this is likely to generate. How the various definitions are going to be interpreted might result in over zealous accusations against one country or another.

    Would this be applied solely to the signatories, or would this be applied across the globe? Let's say Country X didn't sign, is there any way to force compliance, or would Country X end up being the most likely hangout of International Criminals?

    _____________________________

    What I support:

    • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
    • Personal Responsibility
    • Help for the truly needy
    • Limited Government
    • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

    (in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/12/2014 2:47:16 AM   
DaNewAgeViking


Posts: 1009
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
The Japanese didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, but they answered to them after the war anyway. Precedent established.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/12/2014 4:40:05 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


''The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction,'' represents a coming of age for the idea of international justice. The document aims to settle procedure about when and how a court in one country can try a foreign national for crimes committed in another.

Among its conclusions: war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, piracy, slavery, crimes against peace and torture are the seven deadly sins that automatically qualify for universal jurisdiction.

But wherever it takes place, the trial must conform to international norms of due process and human rights. No one can be tried in absentia. The accused can't stand trial twice for the same crime. No one can claim immunity from prosecution for crimes of this magnitude -- not former heads of state, not those suspected of crimes committed many years in the past, not even, in some cases, those who have been granted amnesty by the government of the country where they committed the crime.

------

Comments invited.


What about concepts such as innocent until proven guilty and U.S. Miranda rights (such as the right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.)? Would there be a jury made up of common citizens?

Also, if a deal for immunity or amnesty has to be made by a government out of practical necessity, it seems that the purpose would be defeated by overriding said amnesty. If Pinochet knew what would happen to him later in life, he probably wouldn't have stepped down voluntarily.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/12/2014 8:03:14 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
Many of these principles are already incorporated into international law. An attempt to codify them into a single set of principles won't harm anyone or anything.

What is a concern is the disdain with which the more powerful nations treat the already existing body of law. Applying existing international law equitably across the board - without fear or favour to any nation no matter how powerful - is a more pressing need than agreeing on a uniform set of principles IMHO

_____________________________



(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/12/2014 9:03:54 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
... except people/countries that have an issue with some of the bullshit international laws.





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/12/2014 9:29:43 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

Yes, well the problem with that is there are a great many American public leaders who could be brought up on serious charges if something like this came to be. Actually it would be a good thing if our leadership (so-called) felt the need to look over their shoulder now and then, but realistically it will never happen. For that matter, if it did come to pass, who has the power to bring American war criminals to justice, and make it stick? File this one under 'Good Ideas'.



It is my understanding that there are countrie(s) that would arrest Geo. W. Bush...were he try to enter. (maybe Cheney too)

(in reply to DaNewAgeViking)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/14/2014 7:16:49 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
Not much enthusiasm for universal jurisdiction. Why would a powerful nation be interested in such a thing when it is the abuse of power that such jurisdiction would police. Most Americans seemed to issue a collective yawn after Abu Ghraib. We never internally brought the authors of this policy to justice. Obama also said he would not pursue it.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 2/14/2014 7:18:17 AM >

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/14/2014 12:19:58 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Not much enthusiasm for universal jurisdiction. Why would a powerful nation be interested in such a thing when it is the abuse of power that such jurisdiction would police. Most Americans seemed to issue a collective yawn after Abu Ghraib. We never internally brought the authors of this policy to justice. Obama also said he would not pursue it.

Who has standing to promulgate an indictment? Is there a process for a Grand Jury or does just any judge or prosecutor have authority to bring an indictment?

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/14/2014 2:25:48 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Not much enthusiasm for universal jurisdiction. Why would a powerful nation be interested in such a thing when it is the abuse of power that such jurisdiction would police.

The people voting against it in your poll aren't "powerful nations," they're people who have raised legitimate objections that both you and your document dismiss out of hand and refuse to countenance. Who in their right mind would want to hand over power to that kind of fucked up elitism?

K.


(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/14/2014 4:14:19 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Not much enthusiasm for universal jurisdiction. Why would a powerful nation be interested in such a thing when it is the abuse of power that such jurisdiction would police.

The people voting against it in your poll aren't "powerful nations," they're people who have raised legitimate objections that both you and your document dismiss out of hand and refuse to countenance. Who in their right mind would want to hand over power to that kind of fucked up elitism?

K.



It could be titled "An End to National Sovereignty"

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Universal Jurisdiction - 2/14/2014 4:17:36 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

... except people/countries that have an issue with some of the bullshit international laws.






... usually only when those international laws might be applied to them


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Universal Jurisdiction Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094