--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At Stardate 20030624.2056, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> >Personaly I see the ICC as a step twards European federalization. I think
> >that is a good thing for Europe, but not for the States. It's too much too
>
> >fast. Let Europe federalize first and learn what the difficulties of such
> >a system are.
>
> IIRC, that's not going to happen: the EU recently decided NOT to
> federalise.
Yes and the lack of the other two branches is troubeling.
>
> Only problem is that I can't find a link to a news article about it.
> Martin, could you throw in your excellent talents at URL-finding for this?
>
>
> >What you will learn is that federal chriminal law is a very fragile
> >creature. The only reason that our system works is becouse we have
> >seperate bodies of governemnt. Legislative making the laws, Executive
> >inforcing the laws, and Judicial judging the law in practice.
>
> That cannot be the reason. The Netherlands is not a federal country, but we
> do have those exact same three separate branches: Legislative, Executive
> and Judicial. Works just fine.
The point is you are one state, one people with more or less simmilare
concerns. The US is a diverse people. The local culture in florids is very
different from that in California, Texas is differnt than New Youk etc. The
concerns and style of governement in these areas are very very differnt. Our
fenderal (over reaching) law only works becouse of the 3 branches. Any one
branch alone would have too much power.
The Netherlands has a very effective governemnt and one they should be very
proud of. But they have not delt with the issues of governing geographicaly
disperate, culturaly differnt, peoples with often differng values of areas of
intrest.
The US would not trust a "Judicial branch only" ICC and it would not trust a
world federation with most of the world not as experianced at democratic
feralization. I guess that sounds arogant, but, look at it from our
perspective. I am not a netherlander and can not provide an apropriate
analog, but I am sure you can find an analog. You can at least try before off
handedly deciding that we are arogant becouse of this viewpoint and focusing
on our supposed "attitude" and not put yourself in our position, and ask what
you would do.
> >For the general average American to be satisfied with the ICC we would
> >have to have a simmilar system with 3 equaly powerful branches.
>
> Impossible: those three branches apply to a *country*, but the ICC is not a
>
> country but a Court of Justice. The ICC cannot have those three branches,
> as it would be *part* of one of those branches (Judicial).
Exactly!
> >Further we would have to have equal (by population not by state)
> >democratic control over who manned the positions of such a governement.
>
> Why would you want to have that particular form of control over the ICC,
> when you don't even have that same particular form of control over your own
>
> government?
>
We do. The number of congraspersons is determined by the population of the
state. So is the number of electorats. Senators are the only per state
component and it is done that way so that the "little" states do not get
trampled on by the more populated ones.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
