Should Any Country Be Exempt From International War Crimes Legislation?

[Aberthol]

The Israeli Government has been angry about this as they have been subject to arrest warrants in the UK(and Belgium) for war crimes under current legislation.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israeli-army-officers-fear-arrest-in-uk-1858995.htmlIn the UK and the EU, private individuals can request the arrest of foreign nationals on UK soil for crimes committed overseas.For example, if you knew that your neighbour was an SS General or something, and was responsible for crimes committed in a 3rd country, such as the Ukraine you could ask for his arrest under UK Law.This co-ordinates with International Law. There are exemptions, however. If the subject of an arrest warrant arrives in the country on an official mission as a serving member of a government, they cannot be arrested. However, they could arrested if they were in the EU on holiday.

[dasco]

I don't think that any countries should be exempt. A war crime is a war crime. In my opinion, the origin can't possibly alter that.

[Blagdan]

Actually, your question doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. There is no body that has the legal authority to "legislate" in a binding way upon other countries or their nationals resident in that country. The only thing that a nation can do is pass laws which claim to have extra-territorial effect. A court in Spain or England or anywhere else can issue an arrest warrant. However, if the person who is the subject of the warrant is in another country, it is up to the other country to honor or dishonor the extradition request as it sees fit. So as long as the subject of the warrant stays at home, the warrant is meaningless, unless the nation in which he is in decides to honor the warrant.   This is congruent with existing International Law. Country A and Country B can enter into a treaty which is binding on both parties. However, if Country B decides that it is no longer bound by the treaty, it can rely on the well established rule of law, called, "Clausula rebus sic stantibus," which means that a provision of a treaty will not be enforced because conditions have changed.     In public international law, clausula rebus sic stantibus (Latin for "things thus standing") is the legal doctrine allowing for treaties to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. It is essentially an "escape clause" that makes an exception to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda (promises must be kept).  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausula_rebus_sic_stantibus   As one of my professors said in law school, International Law is like any other form of contract law, except that it provides no mechanism except self-help to remedy a breach of a treaty. To back to your case of the Israeli soldiers, the matter would be different in Israel had signed a treaty which required them to honor UK arrest warrants. However, if they did not want to honor the warrant, they could always repudiate the treaty.     Sources: courses in International Law and cited above   Snow_Leopard's Recommendations Public International Law in a Nutshell(In a Nutshell(West Publishing)) Amazon List Price: $29.00 Used from: $20.50 Principles of Public International Law Amazon List Price: $89.95 Used from: $64.99 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5(based on 7 reviews) The Making of International Law(Foundations of Public International Law) Amazon List Price: $70.00 Used from: $53.13 Snow_Leopard 57 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Bromleigh]

The problem with that "should" is that membership in the World Court is voluntary. You can try, but the country where you're hiding can refuse to cooperate and you'd have to mount an armed invasion to actually get the person(or kidnap him surreptitiously). I read that President G. W. Bush bought a ranch in Uruguay because that's one country that hasn't signed that extradite for indictment by world court treaty. I totally see Israel's point, tho: lots of countries who are their enemies would use something like this against them while themselves refusing to participate(sign the treaty) or, if signed, help find the person("We don't know where he is, wink wink.") Nobody ever wants to cut the Israelis the slack of actually doing the right thing. "If the subject of an arrest warrant arrives in the country on an official mission as a serving member of a government, they cannot be arrested." Is that why they left Kurt Waldheim alone? danielpauldavis 57 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Talmadge]

There are two trains of thought on this question.  Some argue for the concept of "Universal Jurisdiction," in that anyone who commits a war crime can be charged in any country.  To the extent that they allow such a thing, either they figure they're too important to have another country do such a thing to their officials, or they don't expect them to be imposing such rules upon the members of their government.  Peons don't count, of course.  If some soldier is charged with war crimes, well, that's too bad.   Some would argue the problem can be that some of these countries would issue arrest warrants when they don't like the target country rather than whether the person so accused really did something wrong.  And when the host country can and does have the capacity to charge an actual crime as opposed to a politically-motivated baseless charge.   The status as to whether the idea is a good one depends on what side you believe in and whose spin you accept, since you could probably declare virtually every country having or having had people who committed war crimes.  

[Are]

It's not the crimes - it's the jurisdiction A couple of comments:   1- Given that there is no common law that deals with what constitutes a war crime(there is a lot of passion but very little in the way of cases or agreed up law), trying to arrest someone for an amiguous and undefined 'crime' is nothing more than political chicanery.  Since the laws seem to bend themselves to fit the political whims of the week, it seems spurious, if not intellectually dishonest, to single out one country or another.   Last week it was Israel, this week it might be the US, next week it might be Mexico because its army shoots drug dealers.   Having such an ill-defined framework lends itself to misues, which is what we see now.      Some would say that the Israel Cast Lead gaza operation constituted war crimes.  You could make an equivalent point that Hamas, by shooting missles into Sderot, is also liable for war crimes.  Where is the clamoring for enforcement against Hamas?     2- More importantly, universal jurisdiction is very scary.   How does the UK, for example, have the right to arrest someone who supposedly did a crime in a different sovereign state, against a different population, none of which have any connection(nexus) in the UK?  Conceptually, it is absurd.   There is no logic other than emotion that explains this concept.      If taken to its logical extreme, any government official from the President down to the Mayor of Buttnurd South Carolina could be arrested anywhere else in the world for doing almost anything.    With universal jurisdiction, the 'law' is based on the political whims and pressures(yes, call it mob rule) of the country where it takes place.   As such, it is irrational and illegal.  And repulsive. ElBanditoRoso 57 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Edmundo]

There is no body that has the legal authority to "legislate" in a binding way upon other countries or their nationals resident in that country. The only thing that a nation can do is pass laws which claim to have extra-territorial effect. A court in Spain or England or anywhere else can issue an arrest warrant. However, if the person who is the subject of the warrant is in another country, it is up to the other country to honor or dishonor the extradition request as it sees fit. So as long as the subject of the warrant stays at home, the warrant is meaningless, unless the nation in which he is in decides to honor the warrant.   This is congruent with existing International Law. Country A and Country B can enter into a treaty which is binding on both parties. However, if Country B decides that it is no longer bound by the treaty, it can rely on the well established rule of law, called, "Clausula rebus sic stantibus," which means that a provision of a treaty will not be enforced because conditions have changed.     In public international law, clausula rebus sic stantibus (Latin for "things thus standing") is the legal doctrine allowing for treaties to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. It is essentially an "escape clause" that makes an exception to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda (promises must be kept).  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausula_rebus_sic_stantibus   As one of my professors said in law school, International Law is like any other form of contract law, except that it provides no mechanism except self-help to remedy a breach of a treaty. To back to your case of the Israeli soldiers, the matter would be different in Israel had signed a treaty which required them to honor UK arrest warrants. However, if they did not want to honor the warrant, they could always repudiate the treaty.