Universal Jurisdiction??

Maybe one of our attorneys could fill me in a bit more on how this is supposed to work. was on the way in this morning listening to the radio, caught some news where they were talking about Spain having a court that looks into international things like Guantanamo Bay and people killed in Israel etc. And that some people think that American's should embrace "universal jurisdiction". saying that the US supported it in the Nurenburg trials.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, the nurenburg trials (not a historian here so be patient) were a case of the CONQUERORS trying war criminals right? that to me is completely different than one state (state as in sovereign nation) making judgment and passing sentence on the actions or citizens of another.

And what are the expected outcomes from such a trial? to my knowledge one state doesn't have rights to punish a citizen of another state for actions that don't take place in their own country. does that make sense? I can understand if I commit a crime in spain they can punish me. but what do I care if they sentence me for something I do here in the US? I'm not their citizen and don't recognize their authority.

Anybody with insight into how people think this universal jurisdiction thing is supposed to work please share.

Red

an affront to the sovereignty of all nations

I believe they are working on it though
(Europe calling for greater regulations in US finacial system?)

Well, Israel kidnapped Eichman and tried him and nobody raised much of a fuss. I suppose if you were convicted by a Spanish court, you couldn't go to Spain and probably not anywhere in Europe.

Austria has laws against denying the Holocaust, even when the "crime" was not committed in Austria. There is a man called Ernst Zündel in prison in Austria today who was extradited to Austria from Canada, even though he didn't do anything in Austria.

Austria also tried to get England to extradite an Australian, Frederick Tobin, when he set foot in England even though he had never committed the "crime" in Austria. Fortunately, he got off for technical reasons.

The latest news I hear from Spain is that they aren't going to do it anymore.

It is a tempting dream to imagine a hierarchy of lawmaking bodies that covers the whole world. But when you consider the example of the EU (finances have't been signed off for seven years * or so I heard recently) it could more easily be a nightmare.

I feel safer with individual countries with their individual laws. As long as a country minds its own business it should be left to control itself. International bodies should only interfere if one country does something hostile to another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

(Europe calling for greater regulations in US finacial system?)

---

I worked for one of the biggest financial institutions in the world until 2 years ago. U.S. based fwiw. I kid you not, the majority of my time was eventually spent on the red tape, all the pointless bureaucratic nonsense that achieves absolutely nothing except satisfy the auditors. Mostly because of constantly increasing regulations. Which might have been OK if I was a trader or something, but I was in the I.T. department keeping servers running. Well not at the end, I was instructed that keeping live servers running was a lower priority than meeting SLAs on the admin stuff that was foisted on us. So servers stayed down. Eventually I resigned in disgust.

My point is that I genuinely believe that the recent collapse of financial institutions (my old company very much included) was CAUSED by overregulation. Can you imagine what would happen if even more international regulation and auditing were brought in?

Sorry for the rant.:ziplip:

EDIT> * Oops, my mistake. EU finances haven't been signed off for about 14 years now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7092102.stm

Trying very very hard (and apparetnly failing) to not respond to the defense of holocaust deniers...fine company you keep (www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=552003)... Were they not Austrians? Did they not break Austrian LAW? If it is LAW, breaking it is a crime, no? Why is it in quotes? Because you agree with them? Perhaps we can agree to keep this thread on track from now on? These questions are purely for your (and others') thoughts....I will not respond to any further inquiry along these lines in this thread.


As for universal jurisdiction, it is an interesting concept in international law. As opposed to the Hague or Nuremberg, where a multinational coalition applies broadly accepted laws, a single sovereign entity claims that crimes committed outside its borders are bad enough to be crimes against THE WORLD, and as such, they have jurisdiction to protect humaity from the transgressors. Kissinger is a big opponent if I remember correctly.

It is also to be differentiated from extraterritorial jurisdiction, whereas some (or all, depending on the application) of the laws of a country apply to its citizens when travelling abroad. An example is a US citizen smoking a Cuban cigar when travelling....it is against the letter of the law, and they could (in theory) be prosecuted for it!!

I haven't heard any opporistion to Milosevic being tried for war crimes. Had I been running the show in Serbia at the time when everyone (including the US) demanded for him to be delivered, I would have arranged a quick hanging for him in downtown Belgrade for crimes against Serbian people as opposed to him being tried by an international tribunal for matters that were really internal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Trying very very hard (and apparetnly failing) to not respond to the defense of holocaust deniers...fine company you keep (www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=552003)... Were they not Austrians? Did they not break Austrian LAW? If it is LAW, breaking it is a crime, no? Why is it in quotes? Because you agree with them? Perhaps we can agree to keep this thread on track from now on? These questions are purely for your (and others') thoughts....I will not respond to any further inquiry along these lines in this thread.


As for universal jurisdiction, it is an interesting concept in international law. As opposed to the Hague or Nuremberg, where a multinational coalition applies broadly accepted laws, a single sovereign entity claims that crimes committed outside its borders are bad enough to be crimes against THE WORLD, and as such, they have jurisdiction to protect humaity from the transgressors. Kissinger is a big opponent if I remember correctly.

It is also to be differentiated from extraterritorial jurisdiction, whereas some (or all, depending on the application) of the laws of a country apply to its citizens when travelling abroad. An example is a US citizen smoking a Cuban cigar when travelling....it is against the letter of the law, and they could (in theory) be prosecuted for it!!

---

Writing a book that deals with historical fact should not be a crime, but that's for another thread. Zündel is a Canadian living in Canada and Toben is living in Australia, not Austria. And watch your manner's fella.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

...fine company you keep

---

At the moment, I happen to be keeping company with you ... you really shouldn't make cheap shots like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Writing a book that deals with historical fact should not be a crime, but that's for another thread. Zündel is a Canadian living in Canada and Toben is living in Australia, not Austria. And watch your manner's fella.

---

Yes, another thread indeed. Zundel was bron in Germany, kicked out the US, and Canada for a variety of reasons, and is imprisined in Germany, I thought? We can discuss whether Holocaust denial (denying historical fact might be more accurate? We know your opinions of Jews and the holocaust, and they have little to do with Universal Jurisdiction, though of course the cases have relation) should be a crime in another thread any time, though I believe we already have.

As for my manners, (not manner's) I am terribly sorry, but I see nothing in what I wrote that was beyond the pale. In response to a thread about a concept in international law, you brought up the treatment you see as unjust, of a neo-nazi. In most of what I know as polite circles, this is a far greater breach of manners than anything I might have said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

An example is a US citizen smoking a Cuban cigar when travelling....it is against the letter of the law, and they could (in theory) be prosecuted for it!!

---

Is it? Is that a possession/consumption offense? I am not sure, not having read the law in question. I assumed it was a prohibition on importation, in which case your example would not work. Any experts (we have so many cigar smokers on this site, I am we'll get an answer quickly)?