HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Rodrigo Duterte to pull P...

Wed Mar 14, 2018, 06:26 AM

Rodrigo Duterte to pull Philippines out of international criminal court

Source: The Guardian

Rodrigo Duterte is to withdraw the Philippines from the international criminal court after it opened a crimes against humanity investigation into his brutal war on drugs.

In a lengthy statement, the Philippines president accused the ICC and the UN of a crusade against him, denouncing what he described as “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks on my person”.

“I therefore declare and forthwith give notice, as president of the republic of the Philippines, that the Philippines is withdrawing its ratification of the Rome statute [the treaty that established the ICC] effective immediately,” said Duterte.

The ICC announced last month it was that Duterte had committed crimes against humanity in his war on drugs, which has killed an estimated 8,000 people since he took office in May 2016.


Hannah Ellis-Petersen South-east Asia correspondent
Wed 14 Mar 2018 09.08 GMT

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/14/rodrigo-duterte-to-pull-philippines-out-of-international-criminal-court-icc

2 replies, 605 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rodrigo Duterte to pull Philippines out of international criminal court (Original post)
Eugene Mar 2018 OP
raccoon Mar 2018 #1
elleng Mar 2018 #2

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Mar 14, 2018, 09:02 AM

1. Wonder if Dotard will follow suit. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Mar 14, 2018, 10:22 AM

2. 'The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

(Rome Statute),[1] which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", especially when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.[2]

As of November 2016, 124 states are members of the Court.[3] Other states that have not become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China.[3] On May 6, 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome Statute formally withdrew its signature and indicated that it did not intend to ratify the agreement.[3]

United States policy concerning the ICC has varied widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The George W. Bush Administration, the U.S. administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court as an observer.[4] . .

Particular U.S. ratification contingencies
A treaty becomes part of the municipal law of a nation only when the treaty has been ratified, accepted, or acceded to. In the U.S., the Constitution gives the President power to negotiate treaties under the Treaty Clause of Article Two. The President must then submit a treaty to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification, and the Senate must approve the treaty by a two-thirds majority before it can take effect. The Senate may submit amendments, reservations, or explanations to the President regarding the treaty. Once ratified, treaties are generally self-executing—at least from the perspective of other nations—as the ratifying state fully binds itself to the treaty as a matter of the public international law and of national honor and good faith. In the U.S., however, a treaty does not immediately become effective as U.S. domestic law upon entry into force, which occurs only if the treaty is self-executing. In Foster v. Neilson 27 U.S. 253 (1829), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that treaties are self-executing if accompanying legislation is not necessary for implementation. A treaty requiring additional action is not self-executing; it would create an international obligation for the U.S., but would have no effect on domestic law. (Id. 314-315).'>>>


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread