In Support of Ted Galen Carpenter

  James Nespole

    After reading the six positions on the ICC posed by the academics from the reading, I found the argument of Ted Galen Carpenter to be the most persuasive. Carpenter’s main argument is that the problems with the ICC go beyond the Uhuru Kenyatta case, which include causing dictators to latch onto their power when presented with prosecution and clear and obvious violations of due process within the ICC, which is a staple in the American legal system, thus, the US should continue its noninvolvement. 

Carpenter claims that one major issue that is often ignored by ICC supporters is that threatening to prosecute dictators creates an incentive for them to further hold onto their power and increase the brutality of their regime. I think this argument is valid because a dictator who has engaged in an assortment of human-rights violations isn’t going to just surrender themself to the process of international law. They will fight with whatever power they have to prevent this from happening and punish their people in the process. 

Furthermore, Carpenter describes the numerous due process deficiencies in the ICC. The ICC often considers hearsay evidence from anonymous witnesses admissible. American federal law considers hearsay as inadmissible unless a certain statutory provision renders said hearsay admissible. In addition, Carpenter also notes the fact that verdicts are often reached based on a simple majority vote when the panel sometimes only consists of three judges meaning that an individual can either be convicted or acquitted on a two-to-one vote, as was seen in the conviction of a Congolese warlord. In the US, a defendant must be convicted on a unanimous vote from the jury. Finally, some of the members of these panels can be from governments that are adversaries of the defendant’s government or political ideology. There is no protection against bias in the ICC. The facts that hearsay from an anonymous source is admissible, verdicts can be reached by simple majority from as small as a three person panel, and there is no protection against bias clearly demonstrate violations of due process, which is the fundamental principle of the American legal system. Therefore, the US should remain uninvolved in the ICC, as argued by Carpenter. 






 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ICC articles

When it comes to the arguments on the International Crimes Court, I think the article presented by Daniel Abebe is the most convincing to me. After reading the article presented right before it, (the article by Anne Marie Gotez), it seemed that maybe the best way to fix the problems within the ICC would be to give them more funding and allow them to give more financial aid to the victims of these war crimes. Furthermore, she said that the funding for this program had been below a million and it was not enough for the ICC to function effectively. However, after reading the article presented by Abebe it stated that since 2002, the ICC has spent over a billion dollars. If in 20 years they were able to spend this mass amount of money, then there is no way that they are being underfunded. Moreover, Abebe states that the funding for the ICC is over 100 millions dollars a year, which is an incredible quantity of money for people to be asking for more money to be pumped into the system. Abeb...
Read more

Global Justice and Nationalism

  The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy writes in brief the philosophical values and traditions regarding global justice, how it is defined by their standards, and how it is played out within other nation states. I will be focusing mainly on section 2.3, which discusses the duties of compatriots versus non-compatriots, and goes on to further understand the differences between the two, such as how state actors and non-state actors view one another and potentially interact. While most have viewed nationalism in a positive light, nationalism goes beyond respect for national sovereignty, this ideology can perpetuate negative attitudes towards other countries and sometimes even make one states citizens seem morally superior than another citizen who is belonging to another state (Gillian, 2015). There is a debate among egalitarian theorists discussing whether or not concerns with equality should be confined to state members or be granted to every individually globally (Gillian, 2015). ...
Read more

The United States and the World Trade Organization

     Recently there has been large debates regarding the implications regarding the possibility of the United States potentially pulling out of the World Trade Organization. While some politicians and economists supported this idea and have argued that it would be beneficial for the US to leave this organization, the US would have to face some serious consequences that would be hard to bounce back from, not only domestically, but globally since other countries could potentially be positively affected if this deal were to go into effect. The debate is still ongoing, but the consequences and risks of this action, especially during an economic crisis from the covid-19 pandemic, are too great to ignore and continue to be in pursuit of departing from the World Trade Organization.       There are several strong arguments that support my claims that leaving would present more bad than good. First, the US being involved in the world trade organization adds gre...
Read more