- Business notebook: Cape salon picked as one of nation's top 200 (4/17/17)
- Man out on bond for alleged molestation of boys charged with abusing girl (4/18/17)
- Pilot House goes smoke-free (4/23/17)10
- New policy for semissourian.com online commentary: No pseudonyms (4/17/17)59
- Without city record, Marie Street residents on hook for thousands in sewer repairs (4/19/17)7
- Going the distance: Several locals participate in Boston Marathon (4/18/17)2
- Event includes the first public tour of 200-year-old Elmwood Manor (4/23/17)3
- Cape councilman Bob Fox to run for mayor (4/21/17)5
- Deputy: Man kicked, broke uncle's ribs after yard-work dispute (4/19/17)
- Scott County: M Kay Supply in Benton fills unique needs in community (4/14/17)
What is world court, and why does the United States oppose it?
As of now, it's a four-member team with a phone and fax machine at offices in the Netherlands. The court opened for business Monday under a 1998 treaty ratified by 75 countries. It is the first general international criminal court created to try individuals. Other courts have been created for specific conflicts, such as World War II and the ethnic warfare in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The countries involved will elect the court's 18 judges, as well as a lead prosecutor and deputy prosecutors. They should be in place early next year.
The court will try cases of alleged genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. Genocide is defined as organized attempts to wipe out a specific ethnic, religious or national group. War crimes and crimes against humanity include systematic attacks on civilians; most uses of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons; and violations of Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, such as torturing prisoners.
The court can try only cases that involve acts that occur from Monday onward.
Those found guilty could be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison or, in extreme cases, to life in prison.
The court claims jurisdiction over any acts committed on the territory of ratifying nations, Bosnia among them, or by citizens of those nations. Citizens of countries which have not ratified the treaty could be charged for acts that happened in a ratifying country.
Officials say they don't want American soldiers, diplomats or others caught up in politically motivated prosecutions. They object to the fact that the court claims power to prosecute people from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the court treaty.
U.S. soldiers who commit crimes overseas, during military or peacekeeping operations or otherwise, usually are handled by U.S. military courts. For example, a U.S. military court in 1999 sentenced Staff Sgt. Frank J. Ronghi to life in prison for raping and murdering a girl in Kosovo while serving in the peacekeeping mission there.
U.S. soldiers also may be subject to the laws of countries where they commit crimes. American service members in Japan, for example, have been convicted and imprisoned for committing crimes outside U.S. bases there.
Q: What's going to happen to U.N. peacekeeping efforts now?
A: That's unclear. Both U.S. and U.N. officials say Bush's position on the international court could jeopardize peacekeeping operations elsewhere, such as in Kosovo and East Timor. There has been no formal action taken on peacekeeping operations besides Bosnia, although the United States said it will withdraw three military observers from East Timor.
In Bosnia, 46 Americans participate in a 1,500-member U.N. operation training a multiethnic police force. The 18,000-member NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia includes about 3,100 U.S. soldiers.
U.S. officials say they are trying to work out a solution that would exempt from the international court's jurisdiction any forces participating in peacekeeping operations.
On the Net: International Criminal Court: http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html