ICC will not put Tony Blair on trial for war crimes: Report

[rug]

The International Criminal Court said that it is beyond its remit to investigation the decision taken by Tony Blair to go to war in Iraq in 2003



British former prime minister Tony Blair arrives to attend a national service of thanksgiving for the 90th birthday of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II at St Paul's Cathedral in London (AFP)

MEE staff
Sunday 3 July 2016 09:37 UTC
Last update: Sunday 3 July 2016 9:37 UTC

International Criminal Court prosecutors have told a British newspaper that Tony Blair will not be put on trial for war crimes over his involvement in the 2003 Iraq war.

The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday that the ICC had told them in an official statement that British soldiers will be investigated for alleged abuses in Iraq – but that the decision to go to war is beyond its remit.

“As already indicated by the Office in 2006, the 'decision by the UK to go to war in Iraq falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction’,” the ICC said in the statement.

The statement was given ahead of the long-awaited publication of Sir John Chilcot’s investigation into Britain’s war in Iraq, which will be released on Wednesday, and is expected to include strong criticism of former Prime Minister Blair.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/icc-will-not-put-tony-blair-trial-war-crimes-report-1635325811

[FLPanhandle]

1. It would be the end of the ICC if they went after Blair

The ICC exists by each country's agreement to participate. Any attempt to indict a leader or former leader of a major power would mean the withdrawal of that country from the ICC and it's collapse.

[malaise]

2. Western powers can loot, plunder and slaughter at will

while calling everyone else barbarians

[Ghost Dog]

3. It is weird. The Telegraph's story says:

The ICC prosecutor’s office said the ICC was looking at introducing a “crime of aggression” which would cover illegal invasions but that “has not yet crystalised and in any event, will not apply retroactively”. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/02/outrage-as-war-crimes-prosecutors-say-tony-blair-will-not-be-inv/

Illegal invasion not a crime until the ICC says it is? Is it the purpose of this court to apply laws or to make them?

[rug]

4. That's an interesting observation.

6. What about the crime of aggression?

Support was widespread from both States and the NGO community at the Rome Conference for the inclusion of aggression as a crime. However, there was not time to reach a definition of aggression that was acceptable to all. As a result, the Statute provides that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until agreement is reached by States Parties at a Review Conference on the definition, elements, and conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to aggression.

Under the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has exclusive competence to determine whether an act of aggression has been committed. It is provided in the Statute that the final text on the crime of aggression must be consistent with the relevant provisions of the UN Charter.

http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/iccq&a.htm

Appparently it is the UN itself that creates the laws the ICC adjudicates.

It's laid out in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/iccq&a.htm

[Ghost Dog]

5. The UN is asserting the right

to codify, then, what is customary international law, before the ICC can apply it... But some or other party there (cough) is stalling...

Wikipedia has:

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "might makes right", under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law...

... In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[2] [3] Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted. At the Review Conference in June 11, 2010 a total of 111 State Parties to the Court agreed by consensus to adopt a resolution accepting the definition of the crime and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over this crime.[4] The relevant amendments to the Statute, however has not been entered into force yet as of May 14, 2012.

[rug]

6. It does so with the consent of the member states. Guess which member state opposes it.

http://www.state.gov/j/remarks/240579.htm

TL;DR: The U.S.

[Ghost Dog]

8. ... And there you have it.

Rogue superpower exceptionalism. Aka international tyranny.

The USA has gone full mediaeval, politically, in this area.

As ye sow...

[Nye Bevan]

7. If their authority extended to that, they would probably also put Barack Obama on trial,

for civilian deaths caused by US drone attacks.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Seems like the precedent it set would almost demand it.

It's a case of "Be careful what you ask (or in the case of some, demand) for."