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 Now, if Sudan had been in the ICC, I'd imagine they'd have withdrawn right quick to get out of their jurisdiction, but still.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.

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

It should be noted that this is distinct from customary international law, which depends on countries acting according to a norm, not postively signing onto a certain obligation-- and the ICC would not fall under customary international law in any case.

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

Universal jurisdiction exists; it's a recognized basis for jurisdiction in any country, basically. But the question is whether the ICC can exercise it; also, IIRC the ICC covers much more ground than the relatively narrow bases of universal jurisdiction. AFAIK the Darfur matter is a genocide case but ISTR the ICC covers ordinary crimes, too.

I'm inclined to say it shouldn't exercise jurisdiction over the citizens of nonsignatory countries because the US would become a target-- for example, other countries could prosecute our citizens for Abu Ghraib, and I find that a problem. Obvs. other people's mileage varies.

I killed the thread. Probably should get back to work.

I find it a problem (project management killed my involvement in the thread, and I need to get back to work in a sec) not because folks shouldn't be held accountable for Abu Ghraib, but just because it's like a world police force, but not in a good way.

Of course I dream that US violators will be tried properly in the US, but there you go.

eta: No, I don't mean good. I mean fair, and it's ripe for bullying.

Couple finds dead woman's body during Janesville home tour

JANESVILLE, Wis. -- A real estate agent will likely do a house check before bringing in prospective customers after one couple happened upon a homeowner in bed -- dead.

Linda Chabucos-Galow, a real estate agent with Shorewest, stood in the dining room while Justin and Colleen McKeen walked through a house Monday night.

Before long, she heard Colleen scream.

"I thought, 'What's wrong?' Maybe it was a dead mouse or something," Chabucos-Galow said.

But then she peered into the bedroom and saw the body of Linda L. O'Leary, 55, the owner of the home. She had been dead for about two weeks, officials said.

...

Chabucos-Galow said she set up the showing without knowing the homeowner's identity.

After entering the home, she noticed a faint odor but thought it was from the mess in the house or the countertop full of dishes. She saw unopened mail.

"I've smelled death. I know what death smells like," she said. "I can't believe my sinuses were that bad."