Law of the I.Sea.Sea.

The Dutch Navy released all these Somali Pirates today because no country was willing to prosecute them... (full article here)

Okay, Earth, it's called the International Criminal Court. I wrote a whole article about this last year. The ICC is not just for war criminals, it's original purpose, as defined by it's creator whom I interviewed last year, was for TRANSNATIONAL CRIMES. There is just so much I want to say about this right now.

But instead, let's just... Paste that article from The Planet HERE

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently known for its high profile trials of dictators and in conjunction with terms like “crimes against humanity”, “genocide”, and “”war crimes,” but was this the original intention of this body? According to a recent conversation I had with one of the people who helped pass the original draft document on the issue, not at all.

Professor Roy S. Lee, B.C.L., LL.M., Ph.D., who currently teaches at Columbia University's School of Law, was pivotal in creating the wording of the document that created the ICC under the International Court of Justice of the United Nations. He worked with the United Nations since 1969 in the upper levels of the secretariat, on a variety of issues such as human rights, the law of the sea and the law of international institutions. Perhaps the most substantial contribution was in the mid-1990s, while he was in charge of the International Law Commission, the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly and of the Diplomatic Conference which eventually led to the creation of the International Criminal Court, adopted in 1998.

According to Lee the original intention of the ICC was to deal with issues that were outside single state jurisdiction, not matters of war crimes after civil conflict. He highlighted two specific incidents, in fact, that he felt could have been avoided had the ICC been used effectively as he had intended, the Iraq-American weapons of mass destruction debate in 2002-2003 and the Russia-Georgia Ossetia territory dispute currently underway. He said that the United States could, and should had utilized the ICC in this international claim and that a legal dispute could have prevented war in both cases.

However, he did make the concession that the body is operated exactly as he envisioned in 1998 and it only works on a case when the countries involved approve of it. The major concern in early years regarding the creation of any international court system and legal body was the respecting of state sovereignty and the claim of international jurisdiction over that of the state’s own laws. Bypassing state sovereignty and national laws would lead to the disintegration of trust and thereby ruin any legitimacy the ICC has as a place where grievances can be ruled upon in an unbiased manor. The balancing act of enacting international law, which is still being written in many ways, is one major reason why issues such as border conflicts between hegemonies and smaller countries are unlikely to go to the court. Would going to an international court be a sign of weakness, or prove that the ICC was the strongest its ever been, solidifying its place as the highest court in the world, thus fulfilling its original intention?

While it is unlikely that a conflict like the Ossetia dispute or American WMD claim would ever have made it to the ICC, lets hypothesize briefly on the what if scenario. What if in 2002 when Colin Powell went to the United Nations to present materials it was not to convince nations to send allied troops into Iraq but rather subpoena Saddam Hussein, et al. to the ICC for a hearing on his WMD holdings and usage on not only his own people, but threatening the international community. Would we have approximately 90-93,000 civilian Iraqis deaths, over 4,080 Americans dead and 30,000 wounded since May, 2003? Would the trial even be completed yet?

It is useful to hypothesize a world where war can be avoided by taking matters of international dispute to an international court, where issues such as China-Taiwan, Israel-Palestine, Cyprus, and the Kuril island disputes could be decided. Even something like which nation is responsible for refugees who have existed outside of their home country for more than 20 years but refuse to return home could be decided through the ICC, but in the case of Afghanistan, no attempts to go to the ICC have been made.

When I met him at a conference on how climate change affects island states, it would seem that currently Lee wanted the ICC to deal with issues such as who has jurisdiction over the middle of the Pacific Ocean and should clean up the garbage that collects there. As the global warming and changes the focus of nations around the world, perhaps in the future we will see fewer crimes against humanity and more trials on crimes against humidity.

Thanks for reading and best regards,
Alya

Election Day, $8 Coffee, and a Lawn Sign Surprise

I would like to take a moment to congratulate Justin Elicker who won the election on Tuesday November 3, 2009 for Alderman of New Haven's Ward 10. He ran a good, clean campaign based on the issues. I was very proud to be a part of his campaign and to be able to share in his day.

While it is sad to see our ward no longer be represented by an Independent, I am so pleased to know that Justin will be our Alderman. His commitment to stem crime and care for East Rock Park, as well as the way he plans to take on controversial issues like the new Worthington Hooker school opening and rezoning of out Police District.

Additionally, I would like to thank him again for helping me start the Upper Orange Street Block Watch(formerly the East Rock Block Watch). This group has given me the opportunity to become more involved in my community and meet new people.

NOW, Something has gone wrong with my local economy. I went to the little store at the corner that just opened up while I was walking around to help collect the candidate's lawn signs after the election had ended. I wanted coffee. The large cup of coffee with milk and sugar and maybe some foam and caramel syrup stuff, and a croissant: $7.69.

NO FRIGGIN WAY.

America, we need to talk. Alyson is unemployed. Mostly. Alyson will over-pay $7.69 for lots of things: movie tickets, burritos, books, The Economist, $5-foot long sandwich, even a box-o-condoms if it came to it. What? You should ALWAYS use protection people (= best advice ever). But a cup of coffee and a croissant, that's a maximum of $4.50.

So, little shop on the corner, you owe Alyson $3.29 in breakfast food.

And while I went around to collect lawn signs I noticed something fishy. I think there is a Lawn Sign Conspiracy in my district. I am going to describe the situation and you are going to tell me if I am on to something dastardly.

The Elicker Campaign had asked people if they could put lawn signs on people's private property a few weeks ago. The night before the election a group of volunteers put out an additional 100 campaign lawn signs in the tree strip, this put the total number of lawn signs just for the Elicker campaign to about 175 in a 10x10 block area. The campaign was going to organize volunteers this weekend to remove these signs.

Two days after the election (today) I walked for a mile and a half up and down the streets of my neighbor hood and saw TWO lawn signs belonging to the either Aldermanic campaign. I saw EVERY Mayoral lawn sign still in place, and many of the Aldermanic opponent's signs had been removed as well.

Technically putting signs on the tree strip is illegal. All of the Alderman signs from both campaigns had been removed from Ward 10 (but not Roland Lemar's in Ward 9).

I think there was a conspiracy organized by the mayor to keep only his signs up in our ward after the election.

Political lawn sign sabotage? I think so.

Thanks for reading and best regards,
Alya

Adam's Rib and Block Watch

"Take the Boston Tea Party for example, what did they do? Why they dramatized an injustice. That's all I'm trying to do." Katharine Hepburn in "Adam's Rib"

If you haven't seen the movie "Adam's Rib" with Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy then you need to rent it immediately. Briefly, it's the story of two married lawyers who are find themselves trying opposite sides of the same case. The case turns out to be all about women's rights and creates a rift in the marriage.

It's a GREAT movie and possibly my favorite of all time because it's smart and funny and has great acting.

In other news, my local block watch association decided to make me president... which means I am in charge of the email list... and that's about all the power I have. But it certainly leads to many adventures in email (like the time I sent out an email with a type and then sent out another email to correct the first one and that email had two typos...oops?)

Still, I've been hyper vigilant about the goings on in the neighborhood as of late. Sadly, I have yet to report an incident. BUT I WILL. I just have to keep my eyes peeled for crime. I mean, I wish there wasn't any crime... but if that were the case I'd be out of a job. :(

Thanks for reading and best regards,
Alya