Criminalize war

[myata]

In Canada's criminal law virtually any kind of unprovoked violence by an individual against another individual is against the law. The only exception I know of is self-defence. What constitutes self defence and allowed extent of it is clearly defined.

In my very limited knowledge of international law, there's a concept of "war crime" (which is also covered in the mandate of the ICC if I'm not mistaken). These, as far as my understanding goes, and in general terms mostly relate to crimes against civilian population and/or violations of conventions. War itself is still allowed as a means of international relations.

What if any agression (i.e. the act of starting a war) were to be treated in the international law on the same terms as unprovoked violence in the criminal law? Those directly responsible for starting wars routinely brought to justice, e.g. through extension of the ICC's mandate to all war related matters? Would it make international relations more peaceful?

[August1991]

What if any agression (i.e. the act of starting a war) were to be treated in the international law on the same terms as unprovoked violence in the criminal law?

Who would enforce this law and what force would they use to do it?

[Wilber]

What if any agression (i.e. the act of starting a war) were to be treated in the international law on the same terms as unprovoked violence in the criminal law?

Who would enforce this law and what force would they use to do it?

You would have to go to war in order to enforce it. Something like the system we have already.

[jdobbin]

In Canada's criminal law virtually any kind of unprovoked violence by an individual against another individual is against the law. The only exception I know of is self-defence. What constitutes self defence and allowed extent of it is clearly defined.

In my very limited knowledge of international law, there's a concept of "war crime" (which is also covered in the mandate of the ICC if I'm not mistaken). These, as far as my understanding goes, and in general terms mostly relate to crimes against civilian population and/or violations of conventions. War itself is still allowed as a means of international relations.

What if any agression (i.e. the act of starting a war) were to be treated in the international law on the same terms as unprovoked violence in the criminal law? Those directly responsible for starting wars routinely brought to justice, e.g. through extension of the ICC's mandate to all war related matters? Would it make international relations more peaceful?

Only those countries that have signed it can find themselves held accountable by it. And to enforce it against a country that won't be held accountable might entail violence. Not very peaceful.

[Charles Anthony]

What if any agression (i.e. the act of starting a war) were to be treated in the international law on the same terms as unprovoked violence in the criminal law?

Who would enforce this law and what force would they use to do it?

You would have to go to war in order to enforce it. Something like the system we have already.

The "warring" side would just claim self-defense. All of their nation-friends would agree and let them continue their war! Hell, they may even join in the war and help them out.

[myata]

The court can 1) inform the country of the outstanding charges against the alledged perpetrators and request their prosecution if a law of the country allows it; 2) if prosection isn't forthcoming, request their extradition to the international courts' custody; 3) if cooperation in extradition isn't forthcoming, try them "in absentia"; 4) in case of conviction, issue international warrant for their arrest. Convicted individuals then will not be able to travel to any country signatory to the court without fear of going to jail. If sufficient number of countries signed up, the possibility of prosecution could just play some role in evaluation of optons by future Napoleons.

[KrustyKidd]

Convicted individuals then will not be able to travel to any country signatory to the court without fear of going to jail. If sufficient number of countries signed up, the possibility of prosecution could just play some role in evaluation of optons by future Napoleons.

So you propose waiting for Hamas,Hezbollah, and Al Queda leaders to visit one of the countries that has this 'law' in place as a peaceful way to settle things? What good would this do to secure countries from the likes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong who never venture out of state?

[myata]

Open aggression can still be dealt with via normal SC channels, to the extent that agressor withdraws.

The rest will fall under the court's mandate to prosecute war crimes. There shouldn't be a time limit for these crimes.

I'm not sure what do you mean by "secure"? The whole point of this exercise is to get away from vague terminology that can justify virtually anything by meaning essentially nothing. If nasty people behave within law you cannot "secure" them.

[Argus]

Open aggression can still be dealt with via normal SC channels, to the extent that agressor withdraws.

The rest will fall under the court's mandate to prosecute war crimes. There shouldn't be a time limit for these crimes.

I'm not sure what do you mean by "secure"? The whole point of this exercise is to get away from vague terminology that can justify virtually anything by meaning essentially nothing. If nasty people behave within law you cannot "secure" them.

Okay, so hypothetically, what would your court have done with the Lebanese/Israel border skirmish earlier this year? Would the Lebanese leaders, or perhaps Hezbollah leaders have been arrested (somehow) in order to stop them from attacking Israel. Or, more likely, would they have been ignored, and Israel's leaders have been accused of war crimes instead?

[Borg]

So many puppetnations and so many religious factions.

Of course this has probably been brought about by "American aggression".

In fact there are so many wars taking plce right now thatthis is a joke.

Unless of course you want to go to war to enforce it in Africa and Asia.

Then again - what is war? A border incursion, orma terrorist attack or long range bombardment?

Hmm ... who is at war with who - China and Tibet, Korea and Korea, Somalia - civil, Sudan - religious, Etheopis - who knows, and so on. Not to mention Isreal, Afghanistan, Iraq, some of the "Stan" countries and of course let us not forget Syria and their friends.

A foolish question with an impossible answer.

Borg

[myata]

Okay, so hypothetically, what would your court have done with the Lebanese/Israel border skirmish earlier this year? Would the Lebanese leaders, or perhaps Hezbollah leaders have been arrested (somehow) in order to stop them from attacking Israel. Or, more likely, would they have been ignored, and Israel's leaders have been accused of war crimes instead?

First of all, we must define exactly what constitutes a war. A border trouble or conflict would probably require different approach. In a functioning framework of international security, Israel would complain to the international court about these ongoing provocations. Upon judicial consideration, the court may issue a sanction to the SC to stop provocations by applying available legal actions, e.g. assisting the government of Lebanon in enforcing border security, sanctions against it if cooperation isn't given, etc. If however, instead of seeking legal recourse, a country escalates a conflict into a war, it could itself be found liable for the crime of conducting an unwarranted war. That of course, would require the court to make determination as to whether it crossed the limits of reasonable defence.

[Borg]

Hmmm ... define a war.

Sounds like the politicians and lawyers will be the winners.

It involves killing and it involves maiming.

It can be big or it can be small.

There has not been a declared war - I believe - since WWII. All others have been conflicts or police actions.

So it appears that my thoughts as to this being a foolish question with an impossible answer are close to the mark.

War is not illegal - it just pisses some people off.

Combatants may / may not declare war - or their conflict may not be defined as war - or their disagreement may be dirty but not be big enough to be called a war. It still involves killing and maiming.

As for an organization deciding what is war and what is not - I would leave that up to those who are doing the fighting.

Make it illegal? Makes me smile. Never happen. Unenforceable at best.

Borg

[rover1]

I think that some have an inflated idea of just what international law is. It is not the same as national law, and would probably be better termed 'international conventions or agreements.'

[myata]

If a convention or agreement allows a group of countries to invade a sovereign state, I don't see why it cannot prevent from doing the same. No matter what you call it. The end result would be better, in my view - less probability of war, and in the longer term, widely accepted understanding that violence is no more acceptable in the international practice than in our everyday life.

[M.Dancer]

What if any agression (i.e. the act of starting a war) were to be treated in the international law on the same terms as unprovoked violence in the criminal law? Those directly responsible for starting wars routinely brought to justice, e.g. through extension of the ICC's mandate to all war related matters? Would it make international relations more peaceful?

It is...ever hear of Nuremberg? Nuremberg wasn't just about gas chambers....

....the catch is....in order to prosecute, you not only have to win the war, you have to defeat the nation and capture the leaders......most wars are not fought to that end. At some point they stop and let mediation take place so that the instigators can go free and hold rallies in Beirut.