6

6 comments

[–] PMYA [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

I imagine it is actually a lot harder to prosecute people for war crimes in an international court. Citizens are protected by their country of origin, and if there are political issues involved then it becomes difficult to find an independent party to take over and reach a verdict.

I'm not sure, but I think a lot of countries have their own courts or legal acts/systems to deal with war crimes, it doesn't always go through international courts. This is the case in the UK.

[–] Chiefpacman 0 points (+0|-0)

Citizens are protected by their country of origin

Exactly! If they won't cooperate with an organization of nations, why would they cooperate because of one national court?

It just seems like a function of political warfare. I think the spin here is that the Trump administration doesn't care about genocide and war crimes. I don't think the UN is gonna miss any.

[–] PMYA [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

If they won't cooperate with an organization of nations, why would they cooperate because of one national court?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Who is the "they" you're referring to?

[–] Chiefpacman 0 points (+0|-0)

They refers to countries within the international community and their citizens/leaders.

I'm saying; UN Court on human rights/war crimes > all other 'global' reaching courts (as far as international reputation goes).

Why should a (hypothetical) Somalian King answer to a US court? No, I think we have more reason to hold him to a global court.

Or, we could let regions police themselves.