James,
How old is it? The organization "came into being July 1, 2002". It can only prosecute cases occuring upon that date or after. That is (a) - six years and a few days. not, (b). Why this is so hard to admit for H_S is beyond me, unless it a stubborn refusal to correct an honest mis-statement. May be significant since I have been called a mere school-boy on the subject. May also be significant if cases were to appear that were older than 5 years, but within the 6 years + a few days since it was founded.
Shaking head.......
How often do you need to be told. The ICC is NOT TEN YEARS OLD as you noted on the first page of this thread. It was instituted in document in July 2002, ITS FIRST ACTIVE ASSEMBLY was in NOVEMBER 2002, FIVE YEARS AGO.
How many cases has it successfully prosecuted? H_S first posted here, and I quote - "it has successfully prosecuted 12 cases". He has now posted exactly what I found in the wiki article, but again declines to validate the fact that no cases have yet been successfully prosecuted. Correct answer is still (a) - editorializations not withstanding.
The ICC has prosectued TWELVE defendents, most in absentia. TWELVE ARREST WARRANTS WERE ISSUED. FOUR ARRESTS MADE, TWO DEFENDANTS DIED ON THE RUN. FOUR ARE AT LARGE AWAITING ARREST FOR CRIMES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PRODESUTED FOR. LOOK UP THE TERM PROSECUTE. That is where your mistake lies.
Is it related to the United Nations? Of course it is...H_S seems to confirm this, but continues to insist that it is "a completely different beast". Maybe it is, depending on your semantics, but it has similarities, origins, and relationships with the U.N. This idea does have a context here.: - ICC has yet to build a positive record of it's own (after the six years). Many reasonable persons would naturally compare it with the U.N. as far as getting any traction to actually accomplish it's charter, given that it is supported by a majority of the same members and is an unproven international organization having roots in the U.N. general assembly. Correct answer is (a), H_S demurs to say so but does not deny so. It is significant because the U.N. itself can provide case recommendations, just like a member nation. It is also worth noting that the prosecutor of the failed Congo case of this July got the exculpatory evidence from a U.N. confidential source, thus contributing to a failure of prosecution.
The ICC IS NOT RELATED TO THE UN, in an way shape or form. Its structure, methodology and above all its PURPOSE is NOT CONNECTED IN THE SLIGHTEST. The ICC and the UN have a working RELATIONSHIP but cannot in ANY WAY be compared to the UN as an organization, except as I have noted at least a dozen times in that IT HAS AN INTERNATIONAL MEMBERSHIP. The ICC is an INTERNATIONAL COURT OF LAW - that is all. THE UN is not. They work together on occasion as does MacDonalds (another international organization that I am quite suure you are aware of!) and the FBI when matters of crime and legality are concerned. This does not make the FBI and MacDonalds a comparable organization.
My underlying point is this: we have not seen any real results in the six years and a few days of it's existence. It has cost well over 160 million euros during that time. It's relationship with the U.N. played a significant role in causing of the loss of its first attempt to try a case.
I have already stated that the ICC is an INFANT ORGANIZATION WITH ALL ITS START UP COSTS FRONT ENDED. For bloody hell's sakes, read peoples posts AND THINK ABOUT THEM before you respond. The 160 Million Euros has been used to structure, open offices, hire staff. pay wages, find financing, travel costs etc. et. etc. The 160 million Euro's is less than the cost of ONE MISSILE. Give this Organization a chance. It is barely six years old. Try to imagine setting up a window cleaning business that ecompasses a city. If you managed that in six years you would be viewed with admiration.
My immediate point is: while at least two posters here are virtually Fan-Boys for this body, and others openly decry that the U.S. sees faults with it and has not ratified membership, these enthusiasts casually gloss over any negative facts about this organization.
What negative facts? You have no clue what you are talking of James.
Folks like me who post some documented drawbacks or shortcomings with the ICC are labeled with "simplistic", "dense", or "uninformed".
There are just two folks who have done so on this thread, yourself and Burn. Both of you have made complete idiots out of yourselves by making definitive, sneering statements about an organization that both of you clearly knew NOTHING about. Since then you have tried so hard to validate your initial comments, but you have both failed miserably to do so. You were finished the minute that you tried to argue against fact with opinion, and yes, this is a very simplistic and dense thing to do in a debate James.
And yet the facts are the facts - 160 million euros, no convictions. I submit that in a few more years, we may well be asking where all that money went.
Shaking head again......
James, pretty soon you will be using your vote as a lethal weapon. For God's sakes, do your country a favor and educate yourself politically and learn to think critically before you cast your vote. I am beginning to understand why incompetent government appeals to may Americans.
HS