Archive
Categories

Artikel-Schlagworte: „sovereignty“

Why „smart defense“ is the opposite of smart defense

by Skeptizissimus, october 10, 2011, translation by Google

First of all: defense is probably the most important prerequisite for the undisputed sovereignty of a country. And sovereignty in international law and state law includes the integrity of national territory and the decisions of government.

Those who have saved up some minimal residual sympathy for the Federal Republic and perhaps even secretly hope that the media are not brought into line as if by an invisible force, may, with Google’s new search algorithm, search for the term „smart defense“. Surprise! No German-language newspaper or television station reported on the results of the signing of the Brussels conference of NATO defense ministers.

Thanks to the semi-government Russian RIA-Novosti, there are fortunately a little clarification:

Again, a piece of the remaining residual sovereignty of Germany and of all Member States are being eroded. The defense of NATO is to be made in the field of armament „more efficient“.

[Read more …]

Is the ICC entitled to arrest Gaddafi?

[This article was published on july 29, 2011 (when Gaddafi was still in power) in Korrektheiten: „Darf der Internationale Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) Gaddafi verhaften?„, Author and translator: Manfred Kleine-Hartlage]

Does no one really wonder about the fact that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Muammar al-Qaddafi? Is he actually allowed to do so?

This court was established by the signatories of the Rome Statute to prosecute certain crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression) to punish countries whose own judiciaries are not willing or not able to prosecute such acts; thus, classically, for the prosecution of government crimes and crimes of private parties in „failed states“ with no working justice system.

The public was told that the Court will be active only for crimes on the territories of signatory states, and certainly any state is free to join such an agreement and to give its provisions domestic legal force. Equally obvious is that no state has the right unilaterally to subject another sovereign state to its jurisdiction or to authorize third parties to do so. And what is forbidden to one state is equally forbidden to many.

Here, however, there is the first oddity: Libya, whose president is about to be arrested because of acts he has committed on the territory of his own state, has not acceded to the Rome Statute. The activity of the International Criminal Court in the case of Gaddafi is based on an instruction from the UN Security Council. In fact, Member States decided that the ICC will also be responsible for non-signatory States, if required by the UN Security Council in the individual case.

With the Rome Statute, the signatories thus granted to the UN Security Council powers which they themselves have not, and had this is a flagrant violation of a fundamental legal principle: „Nemo plus iuris quam ipse habet potest transferre“.

Moreover, Gaddafi is said to have committed crimes against humanity in terms of the Rome Statute. This term encompasses a range of actions, such as willful killing, torture, imprisonment and the like. Two things are strinking:

First, that such crimes are committed by many, probably the majority of the world’s governments, in particular virtually all dictatorships without necessarily having to face criminal charges against the head of government. The constitutional principle that all known crimes are to be prosecuted, is not applied, not even postulated. However, this principle is not valid by chance, but serves to prevent the law being misused politically, and being arbitrarily used against unpopular individuals. A law that is applied at the discretion of governments sometimes and sometimes not, is none.

However, this is exactly what happens here: The Rome Statute in connection with the illegal authorization of the UN Security Council hangs a sword of Damocles over all the governments of the world, at least the authoritarian, but just does not lead (and isn’t intended to lead to) a more democratic world, but rather to empower the UN Security Council to arrest unwelcome heads of government. The Security Council – these are essentially his five constant members of which the USA, Russia and China have not signedor have not ratified the agreement, and which are able to free themselves by veto from the prosecution by the international penal court.

Second, that Gaddafi has commited his acts, f.e. deliberate homicide, in the framework and for the purpose of quelling a rebellion, i.e. to enforce the state monopoly. This monopoly, however, belongs to the essence statehood as such, and that it must be enforced if necessary by force, is almost a tautology.

The arrest warrant against Gaddafi means no more and no less than that enforcement of the state monopoly has been declared a crime. The consequence is that states are sovereign only as far as it appeals to the five permanent Security Council members, and that the sovereignty of any other state is suspended. Suspended but not in favor of a global legal system, but in favor of a global tyranny.