[Krsqk]

"The ICC is for prosecuting offenders who’s country is unwilling or unable to prosecute them."
Unable? What's unable? What country is unable to prosecute someone? Countries where UN peacekeepers run things? And unwilling? What if you say it's a crime, but my country doesn't? Were US soldiers who fired on Vietnamese children packed with explosives criminals? How about those who ordered the use of Agent Orange? How about those who actually applied it?

"The US doesn't loose any sovereignty if joining the ICC but now it has damaged it as a whole as any dictator in the world will say 'Why are you hunting me? Look at the US, they cannot be tried, so why should I be tried? Equal rights to all!'"
See above. If the US feels their servicemen were justified in a given situation, but someone else (world opinion? the other guy?) doesn't, then you can claim the ICC has jurisdiction.

"The day the world got international crime law was the day the US, England, France and Russia opened the "Nürnberger trials" against the Nazi criminals for offences against mankind (and rightly so!)
So the ICC only has jurisdiction in wartime? Or any time? Is a civil war sufficient, or must it be an international war? What if there is no war, but UN peacekeepers are present? Or humanitarian aid?

"And probaly this trial would be give a more wiser and fair judgement than any country can!!
Because the 'crime' would be seen in more than one prospective, due to the larger amount of 'life wisdom' from all over the world."
International law has never been applied with equity or "fair judgment. If it was, then Stalin and his goons would have been tried as well for their mass slaughter of the Polish and Ukrainians, not to mention their own people! They definitely were "unwilling" to prosecute.

• Does the court have jurisdiction in peacetime? What about acts of war during peacetime? Or is it just wartime? Who is guilty--the one giving orders, or the ones carrying them out?
• What is the enforcement arm of the ICC? World public opinion isn't going to cut it. Sure, they can send peacekeepers into any third-world nation and snatch whoever they want. But what if it's the commander-in-chief of any industrialized nation? You think England would let the UN invade their country? or the US? or anyone else with a decent military? So much for sovreign states.
  

[ July 16, 2002, 23:27: Message edited by: Krsqk ]