Talk:International Criminal Court

Reassessment

International Criminal Court

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: The consensus is to delist due to ongoing problems that require more significant attention than can be given in a reasonable time. There are problems regarding sourcing, with challengeable statements and large chunks that remain unsourced. The lead needs attention, it is large and sprawling. The prose in the article is choppy in places, with a feel that notes have been added to the article without thought given to flow and readability, as a result there are sections of the article that are tiring to read, and the information is not adequately conveyed. There is often too much detail, and the article would benefit from trimming back to the essential points. Article fails GA criteria 1(a), 1(b), 2(b) and 3(b). SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)}

I completely agree. The article reads like a press release.

The first priority should be to draft a section that properly outlines the criticisms. It is for example, a fact that the ICC does not provide for jury trials. Why not just tell the truth and then leave it as a fact? I

It is a fact that where jury trials are a fundamental human right that the ICC denies this human right. The ICC does not consider a jury trial to be a human right. Just tell the truth. That is the truth. Instead of telling the truth, why go off on spin? It doesn't really matter to this article if the US military get jury trials or not. The whole topic is irrelevant to the ICC article and should not even be here.

It is also a fact that where public trials are a fundamental human right that the ICC also denies this human right. Just tell the truth, that the ICC simply does not consider this to be a human right.

The article incorrectly claims that the US Uniform Code of Military Justice does not allow for a jury when it does. Just as with any US court, an accused may either request a judicial trial or to be tried by a panel of their peers who are not judges or lawyers.

This is but one example of why the article is biased and is not factual. It cannot be fixed with a few edits. Fixing the issue that I raise would only be a good beginning. The ICC like everything else has its good points and its bad points. Only an ICC press release would read like this article does. Raggz (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

An IP editor who chooses not to register for privacy reasons requested this. His reasons were: 3+ years since a review, 500+ edits, high profile institution, and bare URLS. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked dabs, one found in ref#1 but I understand this is deliberate. I repaired 49 dead links and tagged a further 7 for which no archived version could be found. Checklinks added titles to bare urls, but references could do with consistent formatting, including author and publisher details. The majority of sources are from the ICC itself. there are some largely uncited sections. Images appear OK. Prose appears to be OK. Stable. Needs more detail on states which have not signed or are critical of the court. The lead does not fully summarise the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The nominating editor, 01:48, 30 July 2007, User:Sideshow Bob Roberts, has not edited since 18:36, 13 September 2009[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have informed the Law and Human Rights projects of this reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I reached this page via the Human Rights Article Alerts page, my initial assessment (independent of the GA criteria) is that this still remains one of our best articles, with brilliant content that is probably unrivaled in any other tertiary source. On the other hand, there are very obvious areas for improvement, in particular in relation to the ongoing investigations and in progress cases and the relevant criticism thereof. Ultimately this article is probably due a reassessment and I would love to help improve any particular areas of weakness that are identified, but at the same time this is a huge and continually developing topic, and we probably do not have the manpower to keep it up to GA status in the longterm ( this pending any new involved editor comments, I would love to be wrong about this!) Ajbpearce (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jezhotwells. And hello Ajbpearce, GA is mostly concerned with technical stuff rather than content, but you're already aware of that, heh. I was also technically not the one who nominated it for reassessment and I'm not a reviewer nor an involved editor so I can't actually pinpoint where it might fail the GA criteria. I did it as help for an IP user (I'm a helper volunteer in our IRC channel), since IP's can't nominate articles for WP:GAR themselves. Jezhotwells has pinpointed several problems though, I suggest fixing those (the uncited sections seem to be the most pressing concern at the moment). Thanks again.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 01:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

minor note, on the 27th feb Jezhotwells added a primary sources tag to the article. I don't really think that it was appropriate criticism / review for this article. Generally - the primary sources seemed to be used descriptively to support factual statements about, e.g the composition of the court, or the content of the articles of the rome statute - where they are the authoritative and most helpful sources for us to link to. I obviously have not gone through all of the 150 citations in detail though, so if you had specific concerns I've missed/overlooked, then could you raise them here? (and i'll obv try to deal with them) Ajbpearce (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Some improvements have been made, but:

• There are citations to other Wikipedia articles, e.g. #24, 25 Fixed, these were places when a blue link would have been fine
• Outstanding dead link tags - These links all go to the website of the ICC, which is not working at the moment, when/is it is fixed these links should come back, if that site remains down permanently (unliley for a major international organisation) then this is a bigger problem though
• Publisher details still missing form citations, inconsistent citation style - As I understand it, the GA criteria do not require that there is a "consistent" style, beyond that they are inline citations from reliable sources, which I think this article has everywhere except at Victim participation where there are two paragraphs that need citations

WP:CITEVAR is the applicable guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Victim participation and reparations section has outstanding citations needed tag - Agreed, see above, will try and work on this
• The Duplication Detector and Earwig indicate a number of likely copywrite violations. If sections of the establishing statutes are used, they need to be rendered as quotations - Any non-trivial section of the statue appears to be rendered as quotations already as far as I can tell, in regards to the reports generated by earwig, they are all almost certainly examples of people C&P a sentence or two from the wikipedia article, or just coincidence when discussing a related topic

Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Territorial jurisdiction section has a lrge section which should be in quotes.

Also Office of the Prosecutor

All of these lengthy quotes should be rendered in blockquotes to make them stand out better.

There are still a lot of stray sentences.

Delist: There has been editing activity, but none seem to address the points that have been raised. There appear to be many books, news articles and journals which cover the establishment and activities of the court which could be used. Long outstanding dead links, weasel words, and references needed tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated with response to 3 of the 4 specific issues you raised, if you could say where weasel words are used, I could fix those, i did not notice them on a read-through Ajbpearce (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The court's creation perhaps constitutes the most significant reform of international law since 1945 "perhaps"

45 United Nations member states have neither signed nor ratified the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are considered by some[who?] to be critical to the success of the court. twice, in lead and artcile. The lead sentence is identical to that in the body, which is not right, the lead should be summary style.

Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely.

Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient.

Taking into account the experience of the ICTY (which worked with the principle of the primacy, instead of complementarity) in relation to co-operation, some scholars have expressed their pessimism as to the possibility of ICC to obtain co-operation of non-party states.

It is sometimes argued that amnesties are necessary to allow the peaceful transfer of power from abusive regimes

For example, the outstanding arrest warrants for four leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army are regarded by some as an obstacle to ending the insurgency in Uganda

The fact that so far the International Criminal Court has only investigated African countries and only indicted Africans is creating resentment in some African countries, even in countries which are state parties to the Court.

All of these instances of "some" or "sometimes" need in-text attribution. The issue of the majority of sources being primary, when there are many available books, journal articles and news items which could be used has not been addressed. The strcuture of the article is not good. There are a number of short sections. Full quotes from statutes are not always needed, summary style is more applicable. This is an artcile for the general reader. The footnotes and external links can provide the detail. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. This can't stay in rehabilitation forever, its had long enough to improve but isn't there. Szzuk (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the easy issues raised, and I am not sure all of the complaints made against the article are valid, but its clear it has issues that its become clear I have neither the time or interest to solve, so.... Ajbpearce (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There have been improvements but it needs someone to spend a few hours on it. It would be quite a lot of effort, and in my opinion that would be unrewarding. As it's had 10 weeks here I think it's fair to conclude other potentially interested editors have the same opinion as us. It's time to close this one. Szzuk (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:DEADREF before dealing with the dead link tags; it was substantially revised earlier this year. Dead links are not actually prohibited by the GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ICC Relationship with NGOs

Hi there! My name is Mirelis Gonzalez and I'm a senior at Syracuse University studying International Relations. As part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy initiative, I plan on including a portion on NGO involvement with the ICC to this article. I've also been editing the entry on the United States and the International Criminal Court, and it'd be great if I could have the support of the Wikipedia community, especially those that have been working with both of the mentioned entries. I look forward to editing and working alongside everyone!

Why does the involvement of NGOs matter?

In the United States, what is the role of the NGOs in regard to the Supreme Court decisions?

Where does any independent judiciary involve NGOs? Raggz (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi is Dead

CNN has reported that the ICC has accepted this claim and allowed the NTC to bury him. It's reported here:http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/20/world/africa/libya-war/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoetheMoe25 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC) The ICC has announced that the investigation of Muammar Gaddafi is practically closed and that they are only focusing on Senussi and his son Saif. It's reported here:http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=740135&publicationSubCategoryId=200JoetheMoe25 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Although it's accepted that he's dead, so far the Pre-Trial chamber has not ordered proceedings to be terminated. I'm sure they will do so imminently but technically he is still a fugitive. Pi (Talk to me! ) 23:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of role in Africa

A number of sources point to criticism, principally within Africa, of the ICC's role in that continent. The following are examples which could be used in drawing up a well-sourced section of text: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]... etc. Real world means that I don't have time to do this myself ... sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Laughable

It is absolutely hilarious how the term conservative is used to describe the Heritage Foundation but when Human Rights Watch is mentioned one sentence later, the term liberal is not used as a descriptor, as if the HRC is not a liberal organization. What a joke. And anyone claiming the HRC doesn't hew to the left is kidding himself and everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Int21h (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is confused. Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Human Rights Campaign (the HRC) are two different organizations. While many would call the HRC liberal, as it is an LGBT rights organization, I don't know of any legit source that would characterize HRW the same way. Viciouslies (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree "conservative" in this context adds some bias to the text. However, please note that calling institutions "liberal" is something very restricted to the US political debate and not correct within an international discussion, as such adjective has other meanings in other political scenarios. --Jgsodre (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the United States in an International context "conservative"?

Is the president of the United States in an International context "conservative"? 05:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

sentences

What is the sentences guilty parties recieve? and has anyone been sentenced? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

First verdict today 14 March 2012 - a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The court cannot impose the death penalty. (BBC) EdwardLane (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ICC "checks and balances" evidence is weird

In the "criticism" section, this article talks about insufficient checks and balances. That's fine, but then it mentions Henry A. Kissinger's article, “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction." I was curious, so I looked up this article. It's a great article, but it has nothing to do with insufficient checks and balances. In fact, the guy really likes the ICC! I don't know why someone cited him, but it ought to be removed, because it's misrepresenting his views.72.80.198.233 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, some of the statements in defense of the court from various individuals, particularly David Schieffer, regarding checks and balances of the ICC system vs. the guarantess of the US Constitution are clearly wrong. The author of this entry is clearly trying to give the impression that the ICC protections are equal to those afforded by the United States Constitution. This is just plain wrong, as evidenced by the following quote, taken from the entry: "Five individuals are in custody; one of them has been found guilty and sentenced (with an appeal lodged), one has been ACQUITTED AND RELEASED (WITH AN APPEAL ANNOUNCED), and three are being tried" (emphasis mine). Allowing an appeal of an acquittal obviously runs afoul of the double jeopardy protections guaranteed by the US Constitution. As is currently written, the entry tries to use the words of David Schieffer to rebut the Heritage Foundation's criticisms of the ICC. Schieffer is, quite simply, incorrect and the quote I provide clearly demonstrates that fact.04:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.40.147 (talk)

BTW sicne when the US Constitution is a universal reference for due process guarantees? IMHO that section need to be rewritten entirely making reference to various legal systems (including inter alia the rights granted by the ECHR, or the Canadian Constitution, or the check and balances that have been in place in other international criminal court like Nuremberg, ICTY, ICTL... Lacking this international comparison, that section, being US-POV-centric, needs to be removed (and maybe put in the article that deals with the US-ICC relationship)--78.14.42.188 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Per Kissinger article issue, anything that purports that Kissinger said something that he did not say is subject to challenge and removal. If Kissinger's does not say they "...are so weak...", then that can (and should) be removed. But it also gives a direct quote, that Kissinger said that the "[prosecutor] has virtually unlimited discretion in practice", and if that is a direct quote then that should stay. Since you have read the article and there is no online version, I think the only person who could revert you is someone else who has read it, which probably aren't many. So have at it.

Per the David Schieffer issue, yes, David Schieffer seems to be asserting that the ICC protections are equal to those afforded by the United States Constitution. Unfortunately for you, the fact that this is "just plain wrong" would still not be enough to remove this material. It has to do with viewpoints, the only way for WP to remain neutral on the issue to give voice to all opposing views, not pick and choose which one is "right". Its great you've come to your own conclusion about what's right and wrong, but that's what blogs are for. This court was brought to you by the same people that brought you Nazi Germany and Vichy France, so obviously right and wrong is viewpoint-based. But again, that's not enough to remove material.

Per the US-centrism issue, no. It is a section concerning criticisms regarding incompatibilities, not a section concerning compatibilities. Saying something is compatible is not a criticism. I have not come across a source that claims the ICC process is in contradiction with any other country's legal processes. I wouldn't see why it would. The US Constitution, as well as various state constitutions, share the trait of limiting the authority of the legislature (California goes crazy with it), but this is uncommon in Europe as I understand it. The UK has been the most successful when it comes to limiting the executive, but as I understand it Parliament could have initiated the Holocaust by law (and could still) and there would be nothing anyone could legally do about it. I hear Germany has an "eternity clause", but I am not sure why they didn't just simplify the clause to say "you can't do anything bad mkay?" because I have never seen a more ambiguous and unenforceable legal clause in my life. But hey you gotta start somewhere I guess. But I digress: it is assumed the ICC procedures are compatible with all these other legal systems, so there is nothing to change. Int21h (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha, the comments directly above these are, for lack of a better word, ludicrous. I love how the author places the term "right" in quotation marks in regards to whether David Schieffer is correct or not. It is a fact that the Sixth Amendment bars the appeal of an acquittal, thus Schieffer's statements are OBJECTIVELY wrong; they aren't just "wrong". Including demonstrably false bullshit in order to maintain "balance" is not something that a so-called encyclopedia (please, don't make me laugh)should be doing. I won't discuss the rest of the comment as it is essentially one long non sequitur.74.138.45.132 (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

limitations

"Limitations" section has NO CITATION. It really needs one.72.80.198.233 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Active Investigation Republic of Korea (South Korea)

I believe this is incorrect and should read People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) as being the country the complaint is being made against. The basis for the complaint from what I read on the ICC website is 1) the bombing of Yeongpyeong Island and 2) the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan. While I am not an active editor anymore on Wikipedia, I hope someone that is familiar with this article will correct this. Thanks Davidpdx (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead too long and fails to summarize issues with targeting Africa

This lead is a beast, And for no good reason. Most of this content does not belong here. And the issue of them targeting Africa seems to have been skipped and footnoted. Well that should be reflected in the lede in a summed up fashion. The lede needs a serious haircut. --Inayity (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(all of this can move)The Court's Pre-Trial Chambers have publicly indicted 30 people, proceedings against 23 of whom are ongoing. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for 21 individuals and summonses to nine others. Five individuals are in custody; one of them has been found guilty and sentenced (with an appeal lodged), three are being tried and one's confirmation of charges hearing has yet to begin. One individual has been acquitted and released (with an appeal lodged). Nine individuals remain at large as fugitives (although one is reported to have died). Additionally, three individuals have been arrested by national authorities, but have not yet been transferred to the Court. Proceedings against seven individuals have finished following the death of two, the dismissal of charges against another four and the withdrawal of charges against one.

As of May 2013, the Court's first trial, the Lubanga trial in the situation of the DR Congo, is in the appeals phase after the accused was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison and a reparations regime was established. The Katanga-Chui trial regarding the DR Congo was concluded in May 2012; Mr Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted and released. The Prosecutor has appealed the acquittal. The decision regarding Mr Katanga is pending. The Bemba trial regarding the Central African Republic is ongoing with the defence presenting its evidence. A fourth trial chamber, for the Banda-Jerbo trial in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, has been established with the trial scheduled to begin in May 2014. There are a fifth and a sixth trial scheduled to begin in July 2013 and a date to be determined respectively in the Kenya situation, namely the Kenyatta and the Ruto-Sang trials. The decision on the confirmation of charges in the Laurent Gbagbo case in the Côte d'Ivoire situation is pending after hearings took place in February 2013. The confirmation of charges hearing in the Ntaganda case in the DR Congo situation is scheduled to begin in September 2013.

The Court has four mechanisms which grant it jurisdiction:

(i) if the accused is a national of a State party to the Rome Statute (ii) if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a State Party (iii) if a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.[21] (iv) if a State not party to the Statute 'accepts' the Court's jurisdiction. The ICC is intended complement existing national judicial systems, and may only exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. The current ICC President, Sang-Hyun Song, has described the Court as a 'failsafe' justice mechanism which holds that States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes occuring within their jurisdiction. [22][23] [24](see spelling mistakes)--Inayity (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling and clean up what was a mess, i have moved the major non-lead material into the body. I am sure others can contribute to refining the lead. As it is still not meeting the criteria of concise. --Inayity (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Palestine info deleted, How to edit templates

Sorry,Int21h. You are right it was important, after doing it I came back today to add it back in. BTW how do you edit these template text used in the doc?--Inayity (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

with the sentence removed, something weird remained indeed. I understand the initial removal however, as very many lines are speant on a single non-member, which are verbatim copies of text below. Can we think of a shorter description here? L.tak (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the article uses [[10]] and it cannot be edited. I have no idea how to edit the template so i copied and pasted the text from the html. By using templates it means no one can edit the references or the text.--Inayity (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If you type: template:ICC member states you can edit it... L.tak (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--Inayity (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Template in Lead

The problem with the template for 1 I did not know how to edit it, and I am pretty sure most editors will not know how to edit it. The other issue is because the template is also used in the body of the text, if i was to trim it to make it concise for the lede, it will also alter it in the body. Now the body and the lead are different because the lead is a summary, it should avoid certain details found in the body. So this is why I did not agree having Templates in the lead. --Inayity (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply to the template in the lede issue, no wonder it was wrecked! Asking, why should someone have to ask to edit an article? Esp when no information is given on how to edit, or issues are not addressed on the talk page? BTW had a look at 10 top articles on Wiki, none use templates in the lead!--Inayity (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Inayity, I too am unable to edit or even find the section to edit in the article. Whoever set up this article has done something outside of the confines of editorial acceptability here on Wikipedia to apparently prevent people from editing the text of the article. The only determine what has happened is either with the assistance of an administrator or two or to review the article's history until one can discover how the article is being masked from editorial interjection. But I too see your difficulty as I was also unable to make the contributions that I wanted to... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

U can edit it now. I post this polite notice to the person dedicated to making the template and 1 week has passed. He complained I damaged his template and said all i had to do was ask. However, no response has been made to the talk page. As an equal editor on Wikipedia I am now removing the template from the lead allowing all editors, without special knowledge to quickly and freely edit the content, this is what Wikipedia is about. The template in the lede violates this. If the template is restored I will revert it.--Inayity (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur in your judgment, Inayity. I propose we replace all instantiations of the template. Templates are not for substantive content in a small number of articles. I am sure EBB is a solid editor and means well, but it is simply not the case that templates cannot be replaced manually with good cause. It is a weak use case for a template to begin with, and using it to simply fork static content is simply improper, if only for the problem we have here. Here we have editors complain that the template content must meet the editorial format of all articles its used inline, which is in effect creating a burden whereas the template is supposed to reduce the burden of editing, thereby defeating its purpose. I have meant to replace it the first I saw it but I just did not for whatever reason, probably because I saw no need to edit it myself. But since you want to edit the content, you were rebuffed, and I did not even see the discussion because the content discussion for this page needed to be made elsewhere, I think it should be replaced. Int21h (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I find it a bit disturbing to be attacked here in a pretty personal manner that has nothing to do with one of the principles of Wikipedia, namely assuming good faith. The only reason for the template being there is that it was quite cumbersome to keep an overview over where articles referring to the states parties of the Rome Statute were in need of being updated at a time when the changes in the numbers of the states parties were quite frequent. I do fully accept any criticism of this having been done, but I am not ready to accept anybody insinuating sinister intentions on my side. In the case of my reversal of the change made by Inayity where he seems to have simply copied the text of the template without the references in it (which, by the way, is not really in line with Wikipedia's policy to reference its content with reliable sources), I did and said just that. I am not sure (really not!) how widespread the use of templates is in Wikipedia, but on editing the article one can see a list of templates used in the article below the editing window. I am not really sure, either, if it is so difficult to find that. Inayity, assuming good faith in your post, I assume you really misunderstood my remark about "asking". I, of course, did not mean you or anyone has to ask for permission before editing an article or a template. I meant (and I am pretty sure that is not the wrongest of views) that if one does not understand how to do something one might simply ask someone who knows it how to do it (or even better perhaps, look it up in the one of the manuals). I, at least for my part, was not born with knowledge of editing a Wikipedia template as well, and I just learned it one day. There are a couple of technical gimmicks in Wikipedia that make life easier for editors and readers alike. I have thought and I still think that having templates is one of the those helpful devices, including in this article. And with regard to not having replied instantly: One might not believe it but I am not on 24/7 watch of the article ... Int21h: There was no discussion on any edits on the template talk page as well. Regards. --EBB (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit after the fact. --EBB (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are reading into this. What personal attack? All i said was having a template locked out other editors. So I guess misunderstanding is going both ways. And I certainly was frustrated with the template more so than the editor who put it there. --Inayity (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for putting a source and qualifying that statement. in the lead--Inayity (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless you are referring to a discussion elsewhere, I disagree that there are any personal attacks here or any insinuations of sinister intentions. I do not equate criticism with such things. I also believe you misunderstand my argument against usage of the template: it is not that templates are being used, it is that this template is being used for substantive article content. This template is the only such template I am aware of, and I think that particular usage of a template is simply counterproductive in the instant case. Int21h (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight at Criticism/Rights of the accussed section

This section of the article focusses entirely on US criticism of the rights of the accussed. The US is just one of almost 200 states which is or could be a participant in the court, so this article should give weight to other countries and or organizations as well. Some of those might be perfectly happy with the current situation, so that should be incorporated as well. It currently seems like the US Constitution is the holy grail for fair and balanced trials and rights for the accussed. While, as an example, for a continental European as myself a trial by jury seems horrific. My suggestion is to mention a bunch of countries and organizations and then have their viewpoints directly next to them, so that it is clear that there are different viewpoints. Crispulop (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the point that only the US system is referenced here and that the article would be more balanced if other nation's legal systems were referred to. However, to my mind and much more fundamental is the question or test of "fit for the purpose". In other words does the system and it's processes adequately address or 'fit' the purpose of the institution? Are jury trials actually appropiate for the type of cases the ICC tries. Whilst it is generally the case that where jury trials are used the jury is the arbiter of fact judges are not entirely precluded from this area. In the UK for example judges may determine whether certain, factual, evidence may be admitted or not. In France and Scotland an inquisitional system exists where a judge conducts the preliminary stage of a criminal matter including the collection and evaluation of evidence. Essentially I would like to see some critical examination of the system used explaining it's differences and their purpose from the usual practices of various nation states. Savize (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for points/info to address this criticism:

• Correction/further clarification; actually the US constitution grants the right to confront "witnesses" rather than the "accusers"
• Judge only trials frequently coexist in systems with jury trials for a number of reasons:

• minor criminal offences are often dealt with by a judge; who may be legally qualified (France, Scotland,UK, USA) or a lay person who recives training and support for their work e.g. lay magistrates in the UK.
• the difficulty of empanelling an unbiased jury where the alleged offence has attracted a great deal of negative or controversial media attention/speculation
• the complexity of the charges e.g. serious fraud cases

• Judge only trials exist in systems such as China, Iran, Netherlands, Russia
• Hybryd judge & jury trials (where judges vote as jury members) also exist as in France which conducts some criminal trials with three judges and nine lay jurors
• the existence of judge vs jury trials can be affected by whether the legal system is adversarial or inquisitorial; the former tend to jury trials while the latter tend to judge only criminal trials

re "... US citizens do not always have a right to a jury trial." Always is a 'loaded' word. This court is concerned with felonies, so please point out in the US where a civilian defendant is not allowed a jury trial when facing a felony charge.

n.b. this is drawn from my general knowledge and understanding. I will check and reference the points in due course. Savize (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient. According to the Heritage Foundation "Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic U.S. constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers."[1]"

Proposed edit - to improve style and eliminate repetition:

Delete the sentence: "Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient."

Rationale: the word "some" is too vague and invites the question "who" or "who exactly". It also simply rephrases the heading and is therefore an unnecessary repetition.

Proposed edit - factual correction

Remove the link set in the quotation "right to confront one's accusers" and add the sentence: "The sixth amendment to the US constitution actually provides for an accused person to have the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him".

Rationale: whilst the quote itself may be correctly reproduced it is, in fact not accurate. There is a difference between an accuser and a witness and more importantly witnesses are not actually accusers in a criminal trial; that is the role of the prosecutor. Indeed in many criminal systems ordinary citizens do not have the right to conduct a prosecution except in exceptional circumstances. Savize (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Savize that's a semantic argument. Witness' against an individual accused of a crime are accusing them of a crime.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As the phrase "the right to confront one's accusers" has entered into common useage perhaps the best thing to do would be to expand the point rather than simply correcting it. Thus: 'Whilst the phrase "the right to confront has entered into common usage the sixth amendment to the US constitution actually provides for an accused person to have the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him"'. I hope this addresses your concern. Savize (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As per usual with these "international" groups led by the west, and half the worlds population is not even a member of this so called "international" court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T32423423423 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it it bizarre to start a paragraph on the rights of the accused with the opinion of a bigot 'think-tank' which is known for misrepresenting the truth on many subjects?

Since 2013 there hasn't been done with this section, time to remove it? Bever (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

clarify this sentence please

However, the summit did not endorse the proposal for a mass withdrawal from the ICC due to lack of support for the idea.[133] Despite these calls the ICC went ahead with calling for Ruto to attend his trial.[134] Not clear what it is trying to say (maybe it is me). --Inayity (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've moved some sentences around so that things flow more logically. Does this clarify the issue? TDL (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Kenia

With this edit (and a few edits before as well), info on Kenia was added, that in my view i) was already partly presented elsewhere (selective prosecution), ii) was not written from a neutral point of view (check the adjectives etcetc), and iii) was not in line with the transcript of the World Radio Netherlands source… I have therefore removed it and suggest to discuss here -if something needs to be included- what it should be…. Please do not readd it, until there is consensus for inclusion… L.tak (talk)

On quick glance the edit is using terms like SHOCKING, so already we need to discuss its quality. --Inayity (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Inayity on Ocampo's remarks (Blatant fabrication of Kenya's ICC Cases)

Firstly, its KENYA NOT Kenia! What the hell is 'Kenia'?!?!?! Get it right next time, son!! Secondly, what Wikipedia rules have I broken??? Stop being petty! Deleting our posts all the time. Looks to me like someone has a problem with the TRUTH!!!

I have quoted Ocampo verbatim! The interview is publicly available here for all to see >>>>>> Moreno Ocampo's interview with Radio Netherlands Worldwide(RNW)<ref>http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/ocampo-exclusive</ref>

It is a shocking revelation to us here in Kenya, after all the hope people put in ICC just to realize White folks had greedy plans to plant puppets in our government..... We are pissed beyond! So deal with it!!!

STOP DELETING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Normally words like shocking etc are not used, as we try to get it as neutral as possible. We could say: "xxxx considered the revelations shocking" if that is relevant... But what is more relevant. I read the interview, but did not fully see the video. Could you indicate at which time points he says charges were fabricated by "western diplomats"? L.tak (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

>>> WATCH THE CLIP AND YOU'LL GET IT.....but if you are too lazy to, READ THIS & LOOKOUT FOR THE BOLD ---> “There were some DIPLOMATS asking me to DO SOMETHING more to PREVENT KENYATTA OR RUTO from running in the elections. And I said ‘it’s NOT my job’....." <ref>http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/ocampo-exclusive</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

>>>>> I have deleted the word SHOCKING..... Hurrah, here's a cookie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down. And here are some serious tips, you do not WP:OWN wikipedia and there are an established set of rules for how we behave, how we speak to each other and how we engage in improving these pages. If you cannot agree with that then go and add the content to your own blog or forum. Your entire tone is offensive. And Stop SHOUTING, it is just a sign of immaturity. --Inayity (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

>>>>>> You're right am pissed off! You piss us off when you delete legitimate posts here on Wikipedia. To us the real immaturity is a guy sitting behind his laptop waiting for me to upload text just for him to delete. Wikipedia isn't even interesting enuff for me to take this bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand the quote "“There were some DIPLOMATS asking me to DO SOMETHING more to PREVENT KENYATTA OR RUTO from running in the elections. And I said ‘it’s NOT my job’.", which I read in the transcript. But you said some western diplomats fabricated charges. So I was wondering how you came about those "fabricated charges". I couldn't find them in teh interview. I also couldn't find the "western" diplomats; just "diplomats". Could you clarify where this info is sourced in the video, because then we can add that to the quote... L.tak (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Listen mate, you clearly don't know anything about the cases. Because if you did, you would know am not referring to 'Chinese diplomats'. Why you would you go about putting so much energy in deleting our posts WITHOUT knowing the story is beyond us. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the Kenyan ICC cases would know that its THE WEST we're referring to. You clearly know zilch about our cases.... yet you delete our single post with such vigor.....?!?!? Makes us wonder whether we've touched a raw nerve?

MY ADVICE: Stop chasing (the few remaining) Wikipedians away. Gotta catch the Arsenal-ManU game now.... Listen, we've put references on the main article if you'd like to understand the Kenyan case more, I have to leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy the game; I will revert, as there is clearly no consensus yet. I just want to clarify: I am a big fan of a neutral point of view and I know the western viewpoint is overrepresented at Wikipedia. But the way to do it, is to back things up with sources, not to read between the lines and in the context and thus interpret what is said. That interpretation is perfect for a blog, a rant, but in an encyclopedia, you have to back it up directly with reliable sources; otherwise it is original research, which is always tempting, but not allowed. That shouldn't be a problem, because there might be many reliable sources reporting this "fabrication of charges". I challenge you to find them, so we can discuss them. But I can not just go with your interpretation (I am also not offering mine; as it is not of any value)... L.tak (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with L.tak. The paragraph as written implied that Ocampo said that diplomats were attempting to "framing them", but I see no evidence of that in the sources provided.

Note that the user is adding the same content to many articles (ie International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya, Luis Moreno Ocampo, Fatou Bensouda) so this discussion has implications beyond just this article. TDL (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

how you sell your arguments is also important. I love NPOV b/c i need to be sure in the foundation of the info i use. I am no fan of ICC, if RS establish it as true-- good for my own politics. But the way this editor is going on works against his own agenda. Also U do not need to know the specific to challenge the assertions based on good scholarship. And he is up for a block due to 3RR--Inayity (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Shaking in my boots! The lot of you are EXACTLY what's wrong with the world! Western muppets who think they are better than the rest of the world. Go ahead BLOCK ME from your boring site! And you wonder why the whole of the world is heading East?? China is the future, y'all are just declining empires. Blocked me yet?????

PS: My team won!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaad (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you have not reverted again makes it getting you blocked less likely (administrators always try to avoid future problems, so if you indicate by your actions, you are here to cooperate, chances are you won't be blocked). So if you don't keep doing it and commit to this discussion, you have all opportunities. Again, you have all possibilities to get the points regarding Kenya (Kenia is Dutch, whence my error), as long as it is directly traceable to sources. I think the interview is a good find that could be used, and we could use it to show that pressure was put on the prosecutor to go beyond what he considered his mandate and that he didn't do that (I think that should not be in the "criticism section", as it is not very critical of the court). In the mean time, we can expand the sections regarding the movement of denouncing the treaty with factual information. Would you consider that an acceptable way forward? L.tak (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Registered vessels situation from case list

Hi! I would propose removing the situation regarding the registered vessels from the "Detailed summary of investigations and prosecutions" and am fully aware that it was probably me who originally added it there. Given the sensitivity of this issue (there will almost certainly foul cries as citizens of Israel may justifiably be seen as the main "targets" of this referral), I would like to propose this here before the action. The reasoning behind my proposal is that there is a preliminiary examination but no investigation (in the formal sense) in the mentioned situation, not to speak of any prosecutions. Of course, if and when the Prosecutor opens an investigation, the situation should be included in that list immediately.

This proposal conincides with Ukraine accepting the Court's jurisdiction. The situation, however, is not fully comparable as for the Prosecutor to investigate in that situation a Pre-Trial Chamber must approve that move. This is not the case for the registered vessels situation where the Prosecutor may now open (sic!) an investigation on her own at any moment.

If there is no rejection of this proposal within the next week or so I would remove the registered vessels situation from the template.

By the way, with Ukraine now having accepted the jurisdiction it once agains turns out that it is becoming increasing difficult to keep all pages up to date. With the template which was removed about a year ago, this would have been much easier.

Happy Easter to whom it may concern. --EBB (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal basis to try non-party defendants?

It seems that the ICC claims jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes when a complaint is made by a party to the Treaty of Rome, even if the complaint is made against a state which is not a member (such as Israel). What is the legal basis for this? Brute force?

What would happen, for example, if Israel would assert that such an investigation and possible trial (presumably in absentia) has no legal basis that it recognizes and retaliated by passing internal legislation citing the illicit proceedings to be an conspiratorial attempt to abduct an Israeli citizen or citizens and name perhaps the chief prosecutor, judges and the head of government of any nation hosting the court (currently The Netherlands) for conspiracy to abduct an Israeli citizen? Other non-party nations might follow suit, perhaps eventually leading to a situation where no head of government would feel secure traveling out of one’s own nation. Is this situation tenable?

If the ICC court another incremental step into the introduction of a “One world government” that certain nations would be justified in resisting, militarily if necessary? I wouldn’t see a problem if both parties in such a dispute were parties to the court. However, if one is not then, again, what is the legal basis of the court? HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi HistoryBuff, in general it might be helpful if you would want to read the article where you will find that there is no possibility to make complaints against particular states. It is only possible to examine situations which may (or may not) in the future include the "situation in Palestine" if and when the Palestinian Authority accepts ICC jurisdiction (or acceeds to the Rome Statute [not the Treaty of Rome, by the way]) and the ICC Prosecutor accepts such declaration to have been made on behalf of the State of Palestine and accepts that the State of Palestine is a "state" for the purposes of the Rome Statute and finds there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court were committed and the country in question is unable or genuinely unable to investigate itself (i.e. if Israel in good faith investigates any alleged crime of one of their soldiers, the ICC has not jurisdiction to do so under any circumstances) and so on.

The legal basis for this is, of course, not "brute force" as you put it but the rather simple principle of a state's ability to prosecute crimes committed on its territory (probably you won't doubt the legal basis for, say, Canadian authorities investigating an Israeli who is alleged to have stolen a book in Canada: This is exactly the point here.). As Israel as of now has not filed a warrant of arrest against the Queen of Canada or its Prime Minister I do not actually believe Israel would do this against a court it states it has "deep sympathy" for.

The several countries which have become a state party of the Rome Statute have simply ceded (part of) their power to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to the International Criminal Court. Greetings. --EBB (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I don’t find it all that illuminating. Of course, I don’t deny a country has a right to charge foreign nationals for crimes committed within its sovereign territory (outside the embrace of diplomatic immunity). Therefore, if Palestine becomes a recognized state then I don’t contest its right to try Israelis for alleged crimes committed within Palestine (with, undoubtedly, Israel responding in kind regarding the rocket attacks and Palestinian incursions into Israel). What I am questioning is by what right does this supranational entity (the ICC) have to try citizens of nations which are not a party to it on behalf of one that is. In the eventuality that Israeli political or military officials are charged by the ICC, then they can, of course, respond as they see fit. I would, however, advise them to retaliate in accordance with what I suggest.

I realize this is not a forum to discuss such issues per se. However, I would like to see this point (in general, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is just a potential example) addressed in the article as I still don’t see where it is as of now. If it comes down to that the right of the ICC to try non-party nationals for alleged crimes (regardless where allegedly committed) is self-asserted (what I term “brute force”), then such should be stated as such within the article. By the way, Queen Elizabeth is head of state, not government. (Regarding Canada, this is a disputed constitutional point.) Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain your suggestion a bit more? We have a paragraph on territorial jurisdiction which is pretty clear; As an aside: if we are to use examples, we'd better not use Palestine, because that is bound end us up in original research territory (boiling down to: what is the territory of the Palestine?) L.tak (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi HistoryBuff, transferring powers to a supranational entity is not that unusual: Within the European Union for example, this is done routinely without anyone (at least to my knowledge) contesting the general right of a country to defer part of its authority to another legal entity (under the law of nations, quite possibly their own constitutions might keep countries from overdoing it). Thus, while we can discuss at length whether or not the "State of Palestine" is a sovereign country (currently, I personally doubt it but I'm quite happy my opinion doesn't count that much with regard to this determination) if the "State of Palestine" is considered a sovereign country it can transfer its authority to investigate war crimes etc. to the International Criminal Court if it so wishes (and if its constitutional laws allow for that). If you question this general concept within international law we will probably not come to a common conclusion.

I am not sure how to understand "regardless where allegedly committed". While a sovereign state has the power to investigate crimes against humanity etc. happening anywhere in the world (even without any context to the investigating country itself) and thus could have transferred these powers in total to the ICC, the Rome Statute is pretty clear regarding territorial jurisdiction. Only crimes taking place within the territory or being committed by a national of a state party (or a country which has accepted the ICC jurisdiction) can be prosecuted at the ICC. Thus, even if the "State of Palestine" accepts ICC jurisdiction the ICC can only investigate crimes committed within the "State of Palestine" or by citizens of the "State of Palestine". And here we get to the other question of the borders of the "State of Palestine".

All this, with a link to universal jurisdiction is included in the article. Kind regards. --EBB (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@l.tak+EBB The paragraph that you refer to under “Territorial jurisdiction” list three criteria for jurisdiction.

The first one presents no problem as it only asserts that countries who have voluntarily accepted the Rome Statue are subject to its authority. However, the second two asserts on a de facto basis that even individual citizens of countries that have not accepted the authority of the ICC under the Rome Statue may be tried for alleged crimes under the circumstances listed. This seems to me to be an obvious case of self-assertion which non-party states may declare invalid. To argue otherwise, falls back on brute force, the axiom that: “Man has whatever rights he can defend.”

I would at the very least like (after these criteria are listed in the relevant paragraph) a sentence along the lines of: “The assertion under the Rome Stature that nationals from non-party states (under the circumstances listed above) may be tried for alleged crimes is one whose legality might be questioned and resisted by non-party defendants and their nations.” This statement does not get into the right and wrong of the proposition but simply addresses a factual potential.

I believe the common perception of a treaty is that it is an instrument voluntarily agreed to by its participants and is only held to by its participants. This statue seems to upend that commonly perceived definition.

Please allow me to elaborate my point. As an American, I am forced to accept the validity of a great many laws that I don’t agree with for reasons of practicality. I cannot (physically) defend a mere self-assertion that I recognize no sovereign authority beyond myself. However, I can and do not accept that I am under the sovereignty of any foreign or supranational entity unless (alas, once again) my country’s government agrees to such on my (most reluctant) behalf. The Untied States never ratified the Statue of Rome and therefore I do not recognize its authority over me or any other American under any circumstances. (However, as stated previously, I do accept the legal authority of other nations regarding my conduct within their sovereign territories.) Thank you both and please tell me if you would object to my proposed sentence as provided above.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: For anyone interested, to show that the point I am raising is not idiosyncratic to me here is a thorough article addressing the contentious Article 12 of the Rome Treaty in which all the arguments are given on both sides of the legal divide. The United States does not recognize the authority of the ICC to indict and try U.S nationals. This most assuredly should be mentioned within the article:

http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1256&context=faculty_publications

If the ICC attempts to indict a United States citizen, the result would be problematic; thus, weight should be given to my proposed sentence to be added where indicated. In fact, in light of this and other articles, I think an entire section should be added highlighting this point of controversy. HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi HistoryBuff. First of all, thank you for the very good atmosphere of our discussion. At times, I experienced vastly different kinds of discussion culture. Second, you will have noticed that I added a sentence regarding universal jurisdiction ("The concept of universal jurisdiction itself has been criticized as undermining national sovereignty while others have argued that it is appropriate for crimes so grave that they affect all humanity."). If that sounds too pathetic for you just edit it ...

However, I still do not see why the second point is problematic for you: If you accept another country's authority over you if you are in that country why can't you accept that this country cedes its authority to investigate a crime that you are alleged to have committed there to a supranational body (under its own constitution)? Asked in another way: If you are in Germany and break a law which was made by the European Union would you contest the validity of the law due to it being made by the European Union?

The third point (UN Security Council) is a point of international law. Here, most countries in the world have become members of the United Nations and have accepted its charter which states that the Security Council can make decisions binding for all UN member states (including the United States). So, again, I don't understand your point.

I would understand your point if the Rome Statute had actually tried to assert universal jurisdiction for the ICC. However, it has done the exact opposite and only put situation under ICC jurisdiction where either a member state's citizen or territory is affected (or the Security Council has referred the situation to the ICC). Kind Regards. --EBB (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

EBB, once again, thank you for your response. I too have noted the unusually polite tenor of this discussion regarding an issue of such potential contentiousness. Thank you for the change you made to which I have no objection. I think it does improve the article at least somewhat, though I still feel as though a more complete discussion of criticism over Article 12 would be most helpful.

As I am recovering from recent cataract surgery, this is not the time for me to read lengthy articles. (I scanned the one to which I linked.) However, I would urge you to read the article through at your convenience if only for your own edification. I visited your user page and it is apparent that you are most interested in international organizations and have contributed greatly to articles concerning them for which I commend you.

Regarding the issue of universal sovereignty (which I’m sure will come as no surprise to you that I categorically reject), I am aware that giving the ICC universal jurisdiction per se was rejected. However, to my mind what resulted was tantamount to the same thing, albeit with certain restrictions.

Regarding the EU, the nation states which belong to it have voluntarily accepted it. Therefore, when in an EU nation I would certainly feel bound by its laws as well as those of the host nations.

Regarding the UN Security Council, your argument strikes me as a backdoor approach to the expansion of UN powers. The Statue of Rome unilaterally expands the power of the UN SC rather than the SC having voted itself such powers, which seems to me to have been a cynical and legally dubious ploy to avoid a US (and possibly Chinese) veto.

Thank you once again for the interesting and cordial exchange of viewpoints. It is apparent that you and I must agree to disagree on the issue of this creeping one-world government that you seem to have an affinity for and for which I have an aversion. I am not a right wing extremist. I simply desire to conserve the values and individual rights upon which my nation was founded at the expense of the blood of our patriots of yore. It will probably not surprise you to learn that I am a great admirer of the UK’s Nigel Farage which is probably anathema to you! Still, that is not my business. The best to you!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I am aware of this discussion, but I haven't found the time to catch up on everyone's positions and concerns, but I promise I will in time. I would like to remind everyone of the Wikipedia talk page guidelines (specifically to not use the talk page as a forum). That being said, I'm just leaving this message to inform everyone that I have completely restructured the "Jurisdiction" section of the article. I feel that it needed to be more clear and expansive. I recognize that this may have disrupted some editing regarding this discussion and I am happy to engage with everyone to address their concerns. Regards, – Zntrip 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Bulky and not concise

This sentence needs work, the original was better structured: The Office of the Prosecutor has opened nine official investigations and is also conducting an additional nine preliminary examinations. Thus far, 28 individuals have been indicted in the ICC, including Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo. Because all the of the official investigations thus far have been in Africa and because all of the indicted persons have been African, the Office of the Prosecutor has been criticized for allegedly disproportionately focusing on Africa and not beginning investigations outside of the continent. --Inayity (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to: Since all of the official investigations have been in Africa, the Office of the Prosecutor has been accused of selective enforcement and criticized for not opening investigations outside of Africa. What are your thoughts on the change? – Zntrip 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Better. I think the Western imperialism is key, b/c the motives are central to why Africa and no where else. Selective enforcement lacks motive. Clearly what they do with Africa they could not do to more powerful nations. most critiques cite imperialism as a motive.--Inayity (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Palestine and ICC update?

There is a lot of news around ICC and Palestine in the news we might need to update. Hoping someone following it would do so.--Inayity (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been adding updates to States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#Palestine. Right now we are just waiting to see how the UNSC responds as depositary to see if they become members. TDL (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has confirmed that Palestine will officially become a member of the International Criminal Court on 1 April 2015, the UN press office said on Wednesday.(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/palestine-member-international-criminal-court-un#) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.175.152 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of Jurisdiction

Reading through the sections on temporal and territorial jurisdiction, a question formed in my mind. The sections refer to "states [becoming] a party to the statute" [Rome Statute]. When do they become a party? Upon signing, or upon approval, acceptance, accession, succession, or ratification? Every one is acknowledged as a different level of becoming a party to the statute on the UN webpage.

See https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en for more details.

Believe the article will be more useful if we are able to address this basic question.Bilhartz (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bilhartz! When a state signs a treaty it does not become a party to it, it only manifests its intention to one day do so. A state does become a party to a treaty upon either its approval, acceptance, accession, succession, or ratification. The difference between approval, acceptance, accession, etc. is rather technical and not really worth mentioning in this article. The introductory section of the article already says that "States which become party to the Rome Statute, for example by ratifying it, become member states of the ICC." – Zntrip 04:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleared from charges

The photo of Kenyatta is accompanied with the assertion that he was one "who was cleared of charges of crimes against humanity". Doest that suggest that he was innocent? (I am not a native speaker but that is how I would interpret the words.) A more neutral wording might be that charges 'were dropped'. Bever (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Russia have now withdrawn

Putin has signed an order to do so. An IP has added this to the lead but it should really be mentioned in the body as Russia were a founding signatory, even if they never ratified it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The source only says that Putin has signed an order to do so, not that it has actually been done. If and when the withdrawal has taken place, it would be added to the list of other states which have withdrawn their signature, such as the US, in International_Criminal_Court#State_parties. TDL (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I suppose Putin could sign another order to remove his signature from the order he just signed to remove Russia's signature, if he changes his mind ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single source doubting their intention of leaving or calling it a bluff. Really don't see why it'd be unclear at this point. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying that it's unclear, but rather that it hasn't yet occurred. An intention to do something and actually doing it are two different things. – Zntrip 23:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why not mention the intention? It's not like we omit Brexit from Wikipedia because it hasn't actually happened yet. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with doubting Russia's intention, and has everything to do with accurately reflecting the current situation rather than WP:CRYSTALBALL projections. A good example is Kenya, who's parliament voted to withdraw years ago, but it has never actually formally withdrawn. Personally I don't doubt that it will withdraw one day, but as of today it has not. TDL (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Now an editor is attempting to prematurely edit war this in without consensus at Template:ICC member states, on the grounds that it is "a development in progress". We have an article which documents "developments in progress": States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The point of the template is to summarize the current status. If we listed all "developments in progress" on the template it would become very long and would no longer be a summary. At that point it would cease to be useful and we might as well just delete it and transclude States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Additionally, the user is citing Sputnik (news agency), which is not a WP:RS. See for example: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_205#Sputnik_News. TDL (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on International Criminal Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205220343/http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm to http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/pressrelease_details%26id%3D152%26l%3Den.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/201.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/chambers.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/otp.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/23428.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2006/0821defenders.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/defence/defaccused.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/victimsissues.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/vtf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220011242/http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ to http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN056745.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/newsletter/12/en_06.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/288.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/222.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)