How can a group like the ICC force its legal will on another country? Is that legit and with precedent?

I don't see how it is legit if Sudan didn't sign the treaty to form the ICC. I'm guessing the ICC feels it must respond to Darfur, legit or not.

That can't be right, Dana. I mean, you can't have to do both.

I have thinky work to do, and no brain to do it with. This is a dilemma.

How can a group like the ICC force its legal will on another country? Is that legit and with precedent?

Yes, this is basically the problem the US had with it. I wrote an essay on it once but forget what their bases are; probably universal jurisdiction (any country can have juris over the citizens of any other country for certain extra-special crimes like genocide, airplane hijacking (maybe?) and mass rape).

That can't be right, Dana. I mean, you can't have to do both.

Apparently I can. They'll exempt me from municipal service if I get picked to serve on a district jury, though. And I can reschedule municipal service if necessary, so there's really a ton of flexibility built in. I can't complain too much.

probably universal jurisdiction (any country can have juris over the citizens of any other country for certain extra-special crimes like genocide, airplane hijacking (maybe?) and mass rape)

That would be my guess also. However, we also discussed this concept in my international law class where, if a sort of critical mass of countries have accepted a certain treaty or law, then that treaty becomes binding on everyone.

universal jurisdiction (any country can have juris over the citizens of any other country for certain extra-special crimes like genocide, airplane hijacking (maybe?) and mass rape).

This exists, then? Or you're saying it's the unsound basis for what the ICC insists on?

Dude. Darfur. People need to be punished. But I'm squeamish about organisations say it's going to be them that does it. Now, if Sudan had been in the ICC, I'd imagine they'd have withdrawn right quick to get out of their jurisdiction, but still.

Still sleeping. Maybe I need to take a walk.

if a sort of critical mass of countries have accepted a certain treaty or law, then that treaty becomes binding on everyone

That's no fair! Hell, half the fun of having my own country would be that I didn't have to listen to anyone else. Actually, perhaps more than half.

if a sort of critical mass of countries have accepted a certain treaty or law, then that treaty becomes binding on everyone

That sounds like the kind of "legal" "argument" T-Rex would come up with.

The library's cheat sheet on customary international law sez:

>What is customary international law?

"It consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way." (Rosenne, Practice and Methods of International Law, p. 55)

The elements of customary international law include:

1. Widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time (State practice).

2. Acts must occur out of sense of obligation (opinio juris).

3. Acts must be taken by a significant number of States and not be rejected by a significant number of States.

"Customary international law develops from the practice of States. >To international lawyers, ‘the practice of states' means official governmental conduct reflected in a variety of acts, including official statements at international conferences and in diplomatic exchanges, formal instructions to diplomatic agents, national court decisions, legislative measures or other actions taken by governments to deal with matters of international concern." (Public International Law in a Nutshell, pp. 22-23).

A peremptory norm (also called "jus cogens") is an international law rule or principle which is accepted and considered binding by the international community. Generally, these norms include prohibitions on use of force, crimes against humanity, war crimes, piracy, genocide, and slavery.

Anyone else having Gmail issues? Chat is working fine, but I can't seem to recieve email.