4 ms·
The ICC is a terrible place to try such a crime if the goal is to have a real impact on carbon emissions. Four states that aren’t members: China, India, Russia
by docdeek 6y ago
The ICC is a terrible place to try such a crime if the goal is to have a real impact on carbon emissions.
Four states that aren’t members: China, India, Russia, and the US. Four states with the largest carbon emissions? China, India, Russia, and the US - on 2020 figures (0), these four states account for more than half of the world’s carbon emissions.
(0): https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...
- Glavnokoman 6y agoThis has nothing to do with carbon emissions.
- skrebbel 6y agoNot knowing anything about the subject, I'm not so sure. Eg if someone's actions or gross negligence causes, say, a big oil spill and the ICC wants to try them, won't that pretty much remove that person's ability to travel to any country that recognizes the ICC? Assuming they'd primarily target businesspeople (eg BP CEO etc), wouldn't act as a pretty decent deterrent?
- dj_mc_merlin 6y agoThe article mentions the ICC would prosecute heads of state. The American Service Members' Protection Act[0] authorizes the president to us "any and all means" to rescue a government official that is tried by a foreign court. It was specifically written with the ICC in mind. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- Daho0n 6y agoThat shouldn't hold them back. Let the US throw the first stone.
- gruez 6y agoHow legal is it to hold a trial without the accused present?
- michaelt 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia The defendant has the right, but not the obligation to be present. If they're informed of the trial but don't show up or send a representative, the trial can go ahead anyway. It would be difficult to try minor crimes (like traffic court) if not turning up to court meant you couldn't be punished.
- gruez 6y ago>The defendant has the right, but not the obligation to be present. If they're informed of the trial but don't show up or send a representative, the trial can go ahead anyway. According to the wikipedia article, it's not as simple as that. It's allowed in some european states but not others. In the US it's disallowed with a variety of exceptions, none of which include "accused was too hard to apprehend". >It would be difficult to try minor crimes (like traffic court) if not turning up to court meant you couldn't be punished. AFAIK those are civil offenses, not criminal offenses, so you don't get many of the due process protections.
- Quanttek 6y agoThe ICC is not allowed to hold trials in absentia. It would wait for a State party to take the accused into custody and transfer them to the ICC
- Quanttek 6y agoThis comment overlooks the fact that the ICC can exert it jurisdiction (power) over two kinds of people: - nationals of State parties committing a crime anywhere (which would exclude Americans) - perpetrators committing a part of the crime on the territory of a State party (which includes e.g. Americans in Afghanistan, Myanmar soldiers deporting Rohingya to Bangladesh). Thus, American CEOs not cleaning up an Oil spill in Canadian waters could be investigated and, if taken into custody, tried.
- Daho0n 6y agoAnd the USA would go all the way to block this. Otherwise a lot of current and former government is at risk of prison if they leave the US.