Full Version: Ariel Sharon Faces Trial in Belgium
I got an email regarding the following article: Sharon Faces Belgian Trial After Term Ends
To summarize:
There are some interesting issues that arise from this Belgian law and the prosecution's pursuit of Mr. Sharon under it. My initial questions:
Do you think Sharon will actually be tried?
What do you think of this law in general?
To summarize:
QUOTE
At issue is a 1993 Belgian law allowing the courts "universal jurisdiction" over crimes against humanity or war crimes. The court's ruling on Wednesday accorded high officials immunity, but implied that they could be pursued once they left office. The ruling overturned a lower court's decision last year that accused people had to be present in Belgium to be investigated
QUOTE
Mr. Sharon and a senior official in the defense ministry, Amos Yaron, are being sued by survivors of a 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by Lebanese Christian militiamen, who were backed by invading Israeli forces. Mr. Sharon was defense minister at the time of the massacre, in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps.
There are some interesting issues that arise from this Belgian law and the prosecution's pursuit of Mr. Sharon under it. My initial questions:
Do you think Sharon will actually be tried?
What do you think of this law in general?
It seems to me that Belgium lacks the authority to try non-Belgian citizens for actions that took place outside of Belgium on behalf of non-Belgian citizens.
Funny that, cause it seems to me that America lacks the authority to try (punish, kill, go to war with, etc.) non-American citizens for actions that took place outside of America on behalf of non-American citizens.
Myx,
Sorry I don't see the connection for this thread or, to be honest, your point.
Sorry I don't see the connection for this thread or, to be honest, your point.
QUOTE(Myxomatosis @ Feb 13 2003, 10:35 PM)
Funny that, cause it seems to me that America lacks the authority to try (punish, kill, go to war with, etc.) non-American citizens for actions that took place outside of America on behalf of non-American citizens.
I agree with Eeyore. Please elaborate and make a connection to the topic.
Amnesty International has a pretty extensive section regarding Universal Jurisdiction.
I'm not sure. Having read up a bit on the law, Belgium has had some problems with people using the law to achieve their political aims, and it has hindered their progress, but they seem to have been quite diligent in trying to find a way to prosecute Arial Sharon. As I understand it, they have been trying since 2001. I'm curious to see if it pans out.
Again, I'm not sure about this one. I can understand the scenario where a country, because of their own political aims, would not prosecute leaders suspected of war crimes, but IMO they should still be tried if there is enough evidence presented to support a trial. The International Criminal Court can't try cases for crimes that occured before July 1, 2002 (Also, I'm not sure if they can try cases against citizens of countries that haven't ratified the treaty.), so I can also see where the idea of Universal Jurisdiction comes into play to assist in enforcing other treaties that countries have ratified, namely the Geneva Convention. There just seem to be a lot of flaws with that system, the largest one being conflict of interest.
Additonally, I'm not quite clear on how this works when the individual is not present in the country. Does anyone know anything about international extradition laws?
QUOTE(jaime)
Do you think Sharon will actually be tried?
I'm not sure. Having read up a bit on the law, Belgium has had some problems with people using the law to achieve their political aims, and it has hindered their progress, but they seem to have been quite diligent in trying to find a way to prosecute Arial Sharon. As I understand it, they have been trying since 2001. I'm curious to see if it pans out.
QUOTE
What do you think of this law in general?
Again, I'm not sure about this one. I can understand the scenario where a country, because of their own political aims, would not prosecute leaders suspected of war crimes, but IMO they should still be tried if there is enough evidence presented to support a trial. The International Criminal Court can't try cases for crimes that occured before July 1, 2002 (Also, I'm not sure if they can try cases against citizens of countries that haven't ratified the treaty.), so I can also see where the idea of Universal Jurisdiction comes into play to assist in enforcing other treaties that countries have ratified, namely the Geneva Convention. There just seem to be a lot of flaws with that system, the largest one being conflict of interest.
Additonally, I'm not quite clear on how this works when the individual is not present in the country. Does anyone know anything about international extradition laws?
The very funny thing is, Israel is one of the states that excercises Universal Jurisdiction, and when Belgium decides to prosecute one of their leaders for war crimes, they're suddenly against it.
Do I think Sharon will be tried? Most likely not. The US will probably step in, as usual, and maintain Israel's exemption from international laws, treaties, and resolutions. (3/4 of the reason there will never be peace in that region.)
I do absolutely and whole-heartedly agree with Universal Jurisdiction, though... Without it, there'd have been no case for taking out Milosevic, and more currently, no case for taking out Saddam Hussein. Its vitally important that world-leaders know they will be held accountable for their actions, even tried for crimes. I'll be very interested in seeing how this particular case unfolds.
Do I think Sharon will be tried? Most likely not. The US will probably step in, as usual, and maintain Israel's exemption from international laws, treaties, and resolutions. (3/4 of the reason there will never be peace in that region.)
I do absolutely and whole-heartedly agree with Universal Jurisdiction, though... Without it, there'd have been no case for taking out Milosevic, and more currently, no case for taking out Saddam Hussein. Its vitally important that world-leaders know they will be held accountable for their actions, even tried for crimes. I'll be very interested in seeing how this particular case unfolds.
QUOTE
The very funny thing is, Israel is one of the states that excercises Universal Jurisdiction, and when Belgium decides to prosecute one of their leaders for war crimes, they're suddenly against it.
I noticed that. Kind of ironic, eh?
QUOTE
I do absolutely and whole-heartedly agree with Universal Jurisdiction, though... Without it, there'd have been no case for taking out Milosevic, and more currently, no case for taking out Saddam Hussein. Its vitally important that world-leaders know they will be held accountable for their actions, even tried for crimes. I'll be very interested in seeing how this particular case unfolds.
I agree, Stefan. Without universal jurisdiction, the most powerful people in the world can effectively commit a crime against humanity and never be tried for it. Knowing that they will be held accountable, should reduce some of those crimes against humanity.
I just see some problems with the system, and I don't know if I'm understanding it fully. Some of my questions would be:
How does it work to extradite a criminal from a country that is unwilling to cooperate?
How do you trust one country to provide a fair trial to a high profile citizen of another country, and how do you keep them from using the power of universal jurisdiction to achieve political aims?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.