Talk:International criminal law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment from User:Jayjg on the current article:

International criminal law is a completely unsourced article; hardly trustworthy, and even it doesn't assert that the ICC and international law are synonymous, or that one implies the other. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:Jayjg is not a reliable source on questions of international law either, insisting on an idiosyncratic definition as part of a wider conflict involving the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and Crime of Apartheid articles. --Coroebus 10:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

'Some precedents in international criminal law can be found in the time before the First World War'[edit]

Well, this is Wikipedia - why doesn't someone refer to them??? AFAIK, the earliest attempt at an international criminal tribunal was following WWI in relation to the Ottoman Empire. But it would be interesting to know of earlier examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

National courts?[edit]

The article certainly needs expanding. It completely leaves out national courts applying international criminal law. What about complimentary jurisdiction etc? --S. Lamb 13:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference to the War-responsibility trials in Finland. -- Petri Krohn 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ambigous cases[edit]

Obsidian Soul, I added an ambiguous cases section, with wording as neutral as possible to avoid WP:Scandal, UNDUE, etc., per your edit summary. I will comne back and add RS. But I might have gone overboard in trying to achieve NPOV, and this time put too little in, instead of too much. Could you please check and comment. Thanks. :) (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Crime against international law[edit]

  • Merge - Nothing in one that should not identically be in the other. PPdd (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I tagged these articles back in Novemeber, given there has been no developments since then I have gone ahead and merged them. The new section probably needs both references and cutting down though Ajbpearce (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was RS section deleted in merge?[edit]


Why was the Avoidance of international law section deleted? It is almost the only content in the entire article with RS, and Operation Broken Trust is Obama and Holder's biggest prosecution, and the international crimes have been going on for 15 years because of the difficulty in obtaining prosecutions because of the micronation, religion aspects, and international criminal law ambiguities, making Washington Post in about 1995, 60 Minutes a few years later, multiple major national and international papers over 15 years, etc.; for 15 years because of the ambiguities in international law. (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as the introduction explains this article is about international criminal law - the body of international law designed to prohibit certain categories of conduct commonly viewed as serious atrocities and to make perpetrators of such conduct criminally accountable for their perpetration. Principally, it deals with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity as well as the War of aggression. This is a well understood area of serious academic concern dealing with serious acts of international concern, from your additions to the article thus far it seems like you don't really understand the topic but are using the phrase "international criminal law" to mean whatever you want it to mean. - It is completely inappropriate to be adding content here about hoax micronations just like like it would be inappropriate to add content about unicorns to an article about spaceships. I would ask that you stop making and revert these additions to the article, which are against consensus and have been removed by myself and two other editors previously. Ajbpearce (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. You only stated in your edit summary that the revert was for UNDUE, which is very different from what you just said. The edits responded to a previous revert by modifying the original edit, and no reply was made to the relevant talk page section above after the modifications. I have no problem with reverting my own edits, even the one I made about the War of Agression in Iraq, if there is RS to support making the revert.
  • 1. Do you have RS to support that the expression only applies to the serious atrocities you listed?
  • 2. Are all violations and crimes against "international law", or avoidance of it by creation of micronations or other means, also violations against "international criminal law"? If not, then why the merge? PPdd (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes sorry I did use UNDUE in my edit summary this time, which was wrong because of this subject should not really be in the article at all.
In regards to your first question, this article is a stub on a complex topic, and the current definition is "less wrong" rather than right. In regards to your first question, while my definition is really only an opening sentance, if you read any introductory book on the subject it will probably open with a fairly similar definition (here is a copy of the introductory chapter of International Criminal Law: Cases and Commentary by Judge Antonio Cassese for example: you will see by reading that that there are some additional atrocities we might well cover in a wikipedia article like apartheid or slavery or torture that I have not included in my basic list - but that under any definition of international criminal law there is no place for fraudulent micronations.
Your second question is a bit difficult to understand but here is an attempt at answering what I understand. 1. violations of (public) international law and international crimes are not the same, indeed much of international law is directed to relations between states where the language of criminality is not applicable. 2. Micro-nations are an irrelevant fiction for the purpose of law. 3. The other article really dealt with how domestic jurisdictions have introduced criminal penalties for serious crimes that may or may not have occurred within their jurisdiction. Its conceivable that this might be spun out into a separate article in the future as this article develops, but having that content under "crimes against international law" was inaccurate and unhelpful, it does not really fit comfortably here but it is "less wrong" than at its last location. I hope you understand now why your previous additions were not appropriate, thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I still do not understand. 1. If a micronation is not a party to a treaty, how is the case of crimes they commit, even genocide, not ambiguous. 2. Even though running an international virtual bank fraud or virtual pedophilia ring may not seem as atrocious as war crimes to some, those with the ruined lives due to these crimes might disagree. 3. Why merge the articles if they are not about the same thing? (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
A partial answer to my questions is in the source you provided (this wiki article is in bad need of repair, when one has to read other sources to figure out what the wiki article is supposed to be about.) - "the notion of international crimes does not include... (d) money laundering; (e) slave trade; or (f) traffic in women." - This seems to cover both of my examples. But the source you gave seems to indicate that international criminal law is completely different from crimes against international law, where things like international fraud, trafficking in children, piracy, etc., would belong, so this indicates that the merge should be undone, and these categories of crimes should be in the other article, not this one. (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
First, I agree this article is is great need of repair, It was even worse last year and we certainly need to improve it further, but I sadly don't have enough time to work on all the wiki articles I want to. Its somewhat difficult to respond to your objections concisely but: 1. Micronations have no status in international law, they are not relevant the the real world at all they are an irrelevant fiction. 2. Irrelevant, international criminal law is not about the "severity" of atrocity, it is about what forms of serious violations of international law attract individual criminal responsibility on an international legal levell. 3. They are (broadly) about the same thing, its just that the thing in question is a major academic discipline that is currently chronically underrepresented on wikipedia, so all I was saying is that in the future we may branch these articles off when they develop. In relation to your second comment, there is not really a distinct concept of a "crime against international law". Ignoring piracy (which is complex and disputed) things like e.g money laundering, the slave trade or international fraud may be transnational crime - and should be dealt with at that stub. The concepts which the old article "crime against international law" dealt with fit in better here. NB: Adding your bizarre micronation fraud issue to that article would be WP:UNDUE, because it is only one example of the thousands of serious transnational crimes that are committed. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The Transnational crime article disposes of all of my questions, and tha material belongs there. But before I add it, I should propbably read up on it a little, which I did not do here. (And I am also losing interest in this subject area and want to go edit some other stuff, or better, go hiking.) I will put a hat on the article disambiguating and sending to transnational crime so others who are similarly unfamiliar with the subject area do not make my error. (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in International criminal law[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of International criminal law's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "iccfact":

Reference named "article11":

Reference named "ai2002":

Reference named "article3":

Reference named "prosecutor":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 16:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)