ndmckinney|net

The International Criminal Court (Cour Pénale Internationale) has issued indictments against two senior Sudanese officials. This is perhaps the most significant action the court has ever taken, and it will be the most controversial.

The ICC must play an international balancing act with this case. Sudan is not a member of the ICC, which creates a huge jurisdictional problem. This case also puts the United States in a difficult position. On the one hand, if the US were to support the ICC, it could claim to be supporting action in Darfur without having to take any actual actions. Pressure is mounting from human rights groups both domestically and internationally for the US to act, and this gives the US an opportunity to appease the groups without exerting any effort.

On the other hand, the US is quite opposed to the ICC; while it was an early supporter of the court, the US withdrew its support on fears of the court being used as a political tool through highly politicized actions against its citizens, particularly its military personal stationed abroad. Also, the lack of formal definitions of some of the crimes left the US uneasy. In the next few days, Washington should give some sort of policy statement regarding the ICC’s indictment. While it is possible the US will restate its past resentment to the court, the US would be wise to improve its international image, especially with respect to its stance on international law, by supporting the ICC’s exertion of jurisdiction in this case.

The ultimate future success of the ICC rests on the outcome of this case. The court will have to legitimize its exercise of jurisdiction to not only the member parties, but to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. The problem is not for the ICC or the ICJ to find jurisdiction (after all, Nürnberg and the ICTY posed no issue for jurisdiction or legitimacy). The problem for the ICC is to convince the United States and other powers opposed to the court that it is exercising a legitimate function by exerting jurisdiction over a non-party. This task is far more important than the trial of the two defendants itself.

Big on questions. Short on answers.

An Italian judge has ordered CIA and Italian agents to stand trial for the 2003 kidnapping and subsequent rendition of an Egyptian cleric. The problem is that the individuals are not in custody.

Now to begin, I don’t agree with the tactics used by the CIA. I think that the rule of law must be respected, and the Italians would have the right to try these individuals, were they to remain in Italy. See The Case of the S.S. Lotus. Arguably, the actions might fall under the immunities granted to foreign governments, but I won’t enter into that debate.

At issue for the U.S. courts will be whether or not to recognize a judgment rendered by the Italian courts. There is nothing binding the U.S. courts to recognize a foreign judgment, save for “the comity of nations.” However, so long as the trial comports with due process of law, our courts will recognize the judgment. However, if a foreign court fails to at least attempt to follow due process, the U.S. will not give recognition to any foreign judgment. As the referenced article notes, “under Italian law the agents can be tried in absentia.” Such a move by the Italian court, especially in the face of other diplomatic and judicial discussions on the matter, exceed the authority of the court, are prejudicial, and waste the time of everyone involved.

It’s really a shame that the Italians have decided to proceed. Instead of waiting for the international negotiation process to work itself out, or taking this action to a larger international institution, they have resorted to “self-help”, and any judgment rendered by the Italian courts will be seen as highly political and utterly lawless. The underlying case is quite meritorious, but the Italians will distract from the issue by creating a new controversy.

It’s always sad when these things happen in your neighborhood.

Via Washingtonpost. Video available at NBC4.

The U.S. Mint is launching yet another one dollar coin, this time a series with all the presidential portraits. In case there is anyone out there who still thinks this might work this time, let me explain: no matter what patriotic figure you put on the coin, it will be a dismal failure in the United States.

At one time, we had dollar coins everywhere. The mythical silver dollar was a widespread piece of currency. The Eisenhower dollar, I think, was the downfall of the American dollar coin, since it was almost as big as the military-industrial complex that would follow it. Ever since then, the coin has been relegated to ridicule. Who exactly was Susan Bea Anthony, and why did we put this woman on this quarter?

The problems with the dollar coin today are quite numerous:

1. They’re heavy.
2. They’re too small, confusing with the quarter.
3. You can’t spend them anywhere.
4. There is a paper dollar that solves all the problems listed above.
5. The mint doesn’t make enough of these coins.

Currently, I live in Holland, where the one and two Euro coin is prominent. But here, the coin is much more practical. The laws of physics cannot change the fact that the coin is heavy, but the problem of it being distinct and useful seems to be solved. I think there are several reasons for this. First, there is a two Euro coin, and that does solve some of the weight issues. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the coin is useful. Not only is the coin useful for vending machines, but, as far as I’ve seen, it’s the only currency you can use in the vending machines. The paper euro (in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 20, and 500 Euro denominations) gets incrementally larger with its value, and I guess the machines don’t like to, or cannot, take them. Enter the coin. Finally, there are no one or two Euro notes, so you don’t get an alternative.

Personally, I can’t wait to get these things in circulation, but not for any practical reason. In 2009 (I’m speculating on the date), the Mint should be releasing the William Henry Harrison, or the “Harry”. President Harrison, as you may remember, was perhaps the most effective (read: least destructive) president in US history. He caught nasty cold on his inauguration and died within thirty days. 2008 candidates take note: the best policy is often to do nothing. (Sure, technically Harry did create a constitutional crisis regarding presidential succession, but he only did this after he died). But I digress. My goal is to single-handedly get the Harry into widespread circulation. My goal is to spread these things around like Johnny Appleseed, going from town to town (in the DC metro area, anyway) and spending these things like currency. Large coffee? That’ll be two Harry’s. Dinner for two at Nora? That’s one hundred and twenty Harry’s. Enter the weight problem again.