Is Justice Truly Blind?

International justice is administered through the International Criminal Court (ICC)……blood thirsty dictators have been brought up on charges and other rulings have been made official…..

There has been considerable (and a mostly successful) effort to set up an International Criminal Court (ICC). The purpose is to have a body that can prosecute serious crimes against humanity no matter who committed them and to try people for gross violations of human rights, such as those committed during military conflicts. Why have some nations, such as the United States, feared a loss of sovereignty even when that would not happen, and thus sought to undermine the ICC?

Read “International Criminal Court: Introduction” to learn more.

However if one goes back through their rulings it seems to be against mostly third world figures and people…..there has been very little justice dealt out to the “civilized” nations…..

Personally, I think that all nations should be held accountable for their actions especially when in involves the massacre of people and the destruction of the civilization….

Every nations must be part of the ICC if they are represented in the UN…that way ALL nations can be held to the same standard.

But that is not how the ICC works….and a few nations are calling it quits over the one-sided rulings and actions……

A third African country says it will leave the International Criminal Court as fears grow of a mass pullout from the body that pursues some of the world’s worst atrocities. Gambia announced the decision on TV Tuesday, accusing the court of unfairly targeting Africa and calling it the “International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of color, especially Africans,” per the AP. The move comes after South Africa last week notified the UN secretary-general it would leave the court; withdrawal takes effect a year after the notification is received. Early last week, Burundi’s president signed legislation to leave the court as well. The EU director for Human Rights Watch calls the decisions “shameful.”

Gambia’s decision is striking because the ICC’s chief prosecutor is Gambian. However, the country’s information minister says the court is involved in “the persecution of Africans, and especially their leaders,” rather than those in Western countries. He singled out former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Only Africans have been charged in the six ICC cases that are ongoing or about to begin, though preliminary investigations have opened elsewhere. Signatory countries have a legal obligation to arrest anyone sought by the tribunal, but some African states have allowed people wanted by the ICC, notably Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, to visit, and some say leaders ought to be immune from prosecution.

These nations have a point…look at the rulings in the last decade or so… will bear out their accusations…..


10 thoughts on “Is Justice Truly Blind?

  1. Western empires will abide by international laws just as long as those laws serve the ends of Western empires. Personally I think the ICC and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee should form one group: they have the same level of “integrity.”

  2. Is justice truly blind?

    It would be more blind if the US would be more aware, informed and objective of the world outside the US.
    I noticed that a lot of issues that concern other nations, the welfare of others outside the US, laws effecting the international community, are often coloured by the still present American Exceptionalistic views.

    The US did nothing to assist it a to a better start of the ICC, to the contrary.

    The ICC is not perfect, if we like it or not it still has to grow into what it is intended to be.
    I noticed often that people have often (due to not being informed about the ICC can and can’t do) been disappointed in the ICC

    The issue of the ICC is something I’m interested in for several reasons.
    One of it is that the ICC is situated in the Netherlands, The Hague to be precisely.
    The Hague, the place were also the Dutch Government can be found.
    It is also the center of several other organisations concerning International Law etc.
    This is a link to another part of the site you have placed a link:

    “The U.S. did eventually signed up to the ICC just before the December 2000 deadline to ensure that it would be a State Party that could participate in decision-making about how the Court works. However,

    By May 2002, the Bush Administration “unsigned” the Rome Statute.
    The U.S. threatened to use military force if U.S. nationals were held at the Hague
    The U.S. continues to pressure many countries to sign agreements not to surrender U.S. citizens to the ICC”

    So the ICC started with a misguided and uninformed action from the US.
    The USA threaded to use military force, meaning in effect attacking another NATO-partner, invading it and “free” US military in ICC-custody.

    In the Netherlands the act was nicknamed “The Hague Invasion Act”
    People here were upset, angry and insulted how a close ally, the US, of the Netherlands, a fellow NATO partner, could do such a thing.
    If you also think a bit further. The regulations of NATO are that if one NATO partner is attacked it is considered that all ar attacked and will come to the aid.
    So the US will invade the Netherlands, but also come to our aid.
    How strange to imagine this!

    If the Bush-entourage would have read the treaty they would have known that the ICC only would NOT intervene when the country who’s citizens/military are suspected of war-crimes and/or crimes against humanity, has a functioning juridical system. The US juridical system is far from perfect but still capable to investigate and put people before a court of law in the US.
    The Act is still active.
    We hoped that under President Obama this Act would been made inactive, not done yet.
    I presume the Republicans have not been very supportive in this.

    If you think this is the whole story, it isn’t you can add blackmail to it
    (same global issues site)
    “In August 2002, the U.S. threatened to withdraw military aid for countries that would not guarantee U.S. immunity from prosecution by the ICC. At that time, Human Rights Watch described the pressure on these countries as the Bush Administration’s attempt at “blackmail.”

      1. It’s typical of any empire, but most blatant now from the US… just like Mr. D. T. America (I mean Donald Trump, not delirium tremens although… they may be closely related) will accept the election results if he wins, but will continue to claim they were rigged, and will not accept the results if he loses. Typical “Usanian” thinking from its always a winner, winner takes all mentality. The USA can only win, it can never lose. Just like Nazi Germany, they were always winning too.

      2. And that did not end well for Germany….and I see a similar scenario looming for the US without some changes….much needed changes…chuq

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s