От Х-55
К Агент
Дата 11.07.2002 06:19:25
Рубрики Локальные конфликты; Политек;

Вообще-то статья из раздела "opinions", т. е. мнения

Приветствую!

Вообще-то статья из раздела "opinions", т. е. мнения. Так что мнения РЕДАКЦИИ это заведомо не отражает.

С уважением, Х-55.
От S.Chaban
К Х-55 (11.07.2002 06:19:25)
Дата 11.07.2002 07:29:47

Самое смешное, что...

Привет!

... сегодня Штаты снизили требование иммунитета до 1 года...

С уважением.
От Х-55
К S.Chaban (11.07.2002 07:29:47)
Дата 11.07.2002 07:39:27

Извините за недогадливость - о чем это вы? (-)
От S.Chaban
К Х-55 (11.07.2002 07:39:27)
Дата 11.07.2002 07:47:33

read this:

Привет!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20020710/

С уважением.
От S.Chaban
К S.Chaban (11.07.2002 07:47:33)
Дата 11.07.2002 07:49:49

Извиняюсь, ссылка не сработала, текст (англ.) в сообсчении (+)

Привет!

US Under Fire, Tries New Proposals on Global Court
Wed Jul 10, 7:40 PM ET
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Under attack from its allies, the United States late on Wednesday introduced a new compromise proposal that would exempt its peacekeepers from prosecution by the world's first permanent criminal court for 12 months.


The American draft resolution, presented to the 15-nation U.N. Security Council, drops an earlier demand -- rejected by most members -- that immunity from the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction be automatically renewed every 12 months.

Whether the new proposals will be approved is not yet clear after a day of public debate in which dozens of countries flailed the Bush administration for trying to stand above the law. Washington has threatened to kill all U.N. peacekeeping missions if its moves against the court were not approved.

British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock, this month's council president, said he viewed the draft resolution as "a very fair basis for discussion" and that council members would send it to their capitals.

But France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, told closed council consultations that the resolution was "a step" in the right direction but fell short of getting his country's support, diplomats said. France has threatened an abstention, rather than using its veto power to kill any U.S. proposal.

The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China are permanent council members with veto rights.

The main obstacle, according to many nations, was the sweeping exemption they say misinterprets a 1998 Rome statute creating the court. This allows the Security Council to provide exemptions only on a "case-by-case" basis.

THREAT TO PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS

The Bush administration has threatened to veto all U.N peacekeeping missions, starting with U.N. police and civilian personnel in Bosnia, if its soldiers and civilian personnel were not exempted from the court's jurisdiction. The council has to vote by Monday.

The ICC is the first global permanent tribunal to try individuals for genocide, war crimes and systematic, gross human rights abuses, a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the Nuremberg trials 56 years ago, when Nazi leaders were prosecuted for new categories of war crimes.

The U.S. draft resolution would exclude "investigation or prosecutions" of current or former peacekeeping personnel from a country that had not ratified the treaty creating the court, such as the United States.

The new court came into existence on July 1 and 76 nations have ratified the treaty establishing the tribunal, including all 15 European Union ( news - web sites) members as well as major African and Latin American nations.

Earlier on Wednesday, Canadian Ambassador Paul Heinbecker organized a public debate so countries could tell Security Council members to reject Washington's position.

And some two dozen nations did so, from New Zealand to South Africa and Jordan to Brazil. Only India took Washington's side, saying the council should consider opposing views.

Germany's deputy ambassador, Hanns Heinrich Schumacher, said that if the Security Council met U.S. demands it risked "undermining its own authority and credibility."

"BLOODIEST OF CENTURIES"

For Washington, the issue is mainly one of principle and ideology because peacekeepers, in bilateral pacts, are already excluded from prosecution in Bosnia.

Furthermore, the ad hoc U.N. court for the former Yugoslavia, which has fewer safeguards than the new tribunal, has jurisdiction in the Balkans. The United States has some 3,000 soldiers under NATO ( news - web sites) rather than U.N. command in Bosnia.

But the Bush administration argues that countries could use the court to try American soldiers or political figures for war crimes and jeopardize U.S. sovereignty.

"Failure to address concerns about placing peacekeepers in legal jeopardy before the International Criminal Court, however, can impede the provision of peacekeepers to the United Nations ( news - web sites)," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told the council. "It certainly will affect our ability to contribute peacekeepers."

Supporters of the court say there are so many safeguards, they fear few cases will come before the tribunal. The court, for example, can only prosecute individuals whose governments are unable or unwilling to do so.

"We have just emerged from a century that witnessed the evils of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin, and the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia," Heinbecker said.

"Surely, we have all learned the fundamental lesson of this bloodiest of centuries, which is that impunity from prosecution for grievous crimes must end," he said.

С уважением.