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

Concientious Objecter Reservist?

Confession: In the past few months I have been thinking ever more seriously about being a reservist in the armed forces. For anyone who knows me for more than 4 years this is shocking. For people who have met me in the past year, maybe not so much.

I have become increasingly interested in a way to serve my country. Problem is of course that I never ever want to fire a weapon. Therefore it's been difficult to put together a way to serve without aggression, especially since I am more than willing to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, or any other war zone, in order to work on behalf of my country. Sadly, I'm a little too strong-willed to follow orders the way they do in the military, and I'm too liberal to fit in, and I'm too much of a peace loving person to fire a weapon, so... maybe I should contact a recruiter and see how I can parlay these things into some sort of support staff or negotiation liaison position.

Despite my numerous applications for jobs within the U.S. government system, the process takes so long, and signing up as a reservist is instantaneous, which is appealing to the spontaneous side of me. At the same time, it seems like I would be far more helpful doing something more constructive than war, seeing as how I pointblank refuse to fire a weapon.

My interest in military personnel has increased lately, I have singled them out for discussion, and only dated men in the armed services for the past six months. not by design really, but it's what appeals to me. They have the same goal as I do, they understand my desire to serve, to travel, to live life with structured adventure, and to be a part of a community that isn't religious or political (even though the military is entirely both). The identity of belonging to something greater is very appealing and very human.

Sadly, I might make this decision based on which uniform I think would look best on me (and it's not the Navy uniform...).

Let's bring it back to the real discussion though: How I wish I could enact change and bring peace and hope to people around the world. In many ways, the armed forces do that for people at home, the transition team provides services to the Iraqi people, and yes, they wage a war and cause destruction, but there is good that can be done.

After this discussion, I can think of no image more fitting than of the United States flag standing outside of the U.N. HQ in New York where I worked for the 63rd General Assembly. In a world where leaders refuse to simply sit and talk, the U.N joins people together on a daily basis for discussion. The peace building that occurs in this building is a step forward for humanity, and while it is not always as successful as we want, or as it could be, without the U.N. there would not be a place for people from around the world to come talk about issues in one room everyday. It is not a perfect system, but nothing is, and I am proud that my country is a member nation (even if sometimes our actions are... well... let's just say we vote with Sudan and North Korea a lot...)

Thanks for reading and best regards,
Alya

Be the Chipmunk

Last night in my ritual excursion to local chatrooms looking to find Connecticut folk who may have jobs in their offices, I stumbled upon a singular human being. I rapidly became involved in a serendipitous hour long debate (part of which involved how maple candy tasted much like a combination of maple syrup and the "aww" sound you make when you see a very cute baby). After a discussion of the exact placement of the chipmunk in the ecological life- cycle (somewhere between nuts and leaves, and everything else), I discovered that I have altogether let down my defenses and not even asked his name, age, location, or any of my usual screening questions.

After admitting to being won over instantly by his charm, wit and charisma, we fell into a conversation about his time overseas. We compared stories of living in predominantly Muslim societies and how it shaped our views on religion. We also discussed the hardships of returning home after such an experience. We spoke about how he looks at Muslim Americans after serving three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. How he knows they think differently than the people in the places he was fighting, but has trouble shaking the immediate gut reaction. Which leads me to my FIRST This American Life shout-out!!!! woo! Episode 359: Life After Death about how after returning from Iraq a man joins a Muslim Student's Association at his college, first story.

While I in NO WAY want to say my own comparatively paltry six combined months in Kenya and month in Morocco is even near his three tours in the Middle East, I do hope this helped me, at least on some low level, connect with him. As most of you know, I have the utmost respect for men and women who serve in the armed forces, and despite my personal sentiments about how the war was started (yes I protested. Whatever free speech, check that constitution before you criticize.), now that we're there, my opinion is the following: "Supporting the troops" means giving them EVERY SINGLE ADVANTAGE and protection, and getting them out of harm's way as soon as possible by taking economically and politically rational and reasonable steps for stabilization.

We clear? You're allowed to disagree. But you'd be wrong. And it's my blog. (burn)

I truly wish I had his full permission to talk about this more than vaguely, because it was a fascinating conversation, especially to someone who has always found the connection between the U.S. armed services and religion fascinating while we claim to have a separation of church and state. His assertion that religion and the belief in a god was strengthening the resolve of both sides in this war was far more pivotal to the debate than perhaps he realized. He spoke eloquently about such a dark subject. Without knowing it he brought me to tears, not because I was upset or anything he said was sad or scary but because I felt so... it felt wrong that such a beautiful person should be forced to go through such a horrible travesty as war. Especially a war that is being ignored and forgotten at home.

And if he finds this, which I'm sure he might, I want him to know that for the brief time that our world's collided, we had passionate, moving, and intellectual exchanges, and he touched my reality and shifted my perceptions. And I'm thankful for that.

Thanks for reading and best regards,
Alya