--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At Stardate 20030626.0002, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> The EU doesn't have these three branches yet because it's not a country;
> the EU is a body in which a number of countries cooperate on many levels.
>
> And you must keep in mind that the EU and the ICC are two entirely
> different bodies; the ICC is not an EU court, it's a world court that just
> happens to have its offices in an EU member country.
jeroen, we don't seem to be comunicating. You don't seem to be getting what I
am saying, and I am guessing that I am not getting you either. So let me try
again.
1) The US population believes that our system works becouse of the 3
branches. We would not want to have any one or two of these branches without
the others. The ICC is one branch without the others. This concerns us
greatly, we do not feel (and I speek for myself and a few others, but I
believe my words to be true for the majority) that having a Judicial without
the other two is a good thing. It would have more power than it should and
would not be balance. Therefore the ICC is scarry to us and looks like the
first step on a slipery slope twards an orwelian future we do not want.
2) (Seperate point based on the first) Even if there was an "International 3
Branch System" which the ICC was one branch of, we would be concerned that
many other countries (maybe not yours) would not yet be prepared for that
kind of federalism, and that, depending on the power of this gevernment, the
US would not be prepared to take any steps backwards.
This may be an unwarented fear in your eyes, but we have been a federation
with little states (countries) having power, and an overall governemnt also
having power. No onther country, except perhaps canada, has had as much
experience with this sort of governance. The average American would even
argue that the way Canada has done it is less than what we would want. If we
were to be a part of a larger over-reaching world federation we would want to
first see some experience by other countries and other federations.
A first step twards this would be a federal EU. A Democratic China A
Democratic and Federal Middle East. A Democratic and federal Africa. etc.
Once such systems had prooven viable, then we would consider joining a world
federation.
Summery
The ICC alone is a broken 1/3 of a federation in the American opion. We would
not agree to an international judicial body without the other two branches.
The world is not yet ready for reginaol, much less world federation. It will
be a long time before the world is ready for such a system. In addition to
this we have a lot of issues with the ICC as it is, but those can all be
boiled down to the lack of the other two branches.
>
> > > >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.
>
> You have never travelled around The Netherlands, have you? We are a very
> diverse people, which is understandable when you realise that we have
> people of pretty much every nationality and cultural background living
> within our borders. Local cultures very greatly throughout the country.
But not LOCAL GOVERNMENTS every one of our states is the same as a country.
Diverse people, varying culture etc. But we have a lot of THESE. Each of our
states are like the differnent-states- in Europe. The only body in Europe
that even comes close to this is the UK.
I know how diverse and wonderful the Netcherlands are, but there is a big
difference in scale, A meeting of Mayors and a meeting of governers is very
different. Our governers deal with more or less the same issues that your
presidents deal with. Our president is at a higher level. The rest of the
branches are the same. Do you not get this?
> Our country may be a lot smaller than the US, but that doesn't mean we're
> some small homogenised society. In many respects we are quite similar to
> the US, the only difference is in the sheer scale.
And that is the part that is important. The only thing that would be simmilar
would be a federal Europe.
>
> >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.
>
> You'd be surprised. Not only do we have to keep the interests of a very
> diverse people in mind (who have very diverse culture backgrounds,
> different values and conflicting interests),
That's not the same as these people governing themselvs and making their own
forign relations in addition to that of the federal governement.
> we also have plenty of
> experience in governing people who are living in other places in the world.
>
> We've had colonies in SE Asia, Surinam was part of the Kingdom before it
> gained independence, and the Netherlands Antilles are still Dutch (albeit
> with ever-increasing self-governance).
Imperialism doesn't count. Sorry.
>
> >The US would not trust a "Judicial branch only" ICC
>
> You don't get it. The ICC is not a country and therefore can't have a
> Legislative branch, an Executive branch and a Judicial branch. The
> international community is gradually moving to forming a world government,
> and the ICC would be part of the Judicial branch of that government.
>
> You seem to be insisting that a court must have all three of these
> branches. Does any US court (which is by definition part of the US Judicial
>
> branch) have a Legislative, an Executive and a Judicial branch itself? That
>
> seems unlikely, as it would mean that a court can act as if it is a country
>
> in itself.
See above.
> > > >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.
>
> Exactly! What you propose for the ICC is representative governance, but you
>
> don't use that same system for your own country.
>
What do you mean? We DO use representative governance!!! You are going to
have to clarify your point here becouse it looks to me like you are calling
white black and black white.
> >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.
>
> Then why don't you want a similar system for the ICC? After all, you
> wouldn't want the "little" countries to be trampled on by the more
> populated ones, right?
>
We do infact want a simmilar system for the ICC. See above.
=====
_________________________________________________
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!
