How come western leaders avoid war crimes court cases?

Question

Not political point scoring, a serious question - really!

Ok, to clarify then...
I'm talking about recent cases since the second world war and for leaders of countries like the UK and US. I travel quite a bit and red interesting accounts of what we do (don't hear so much at home in UK) so do wonder. How is this decided, who trials who?

Answer 1

In real life the only leaders that ever make it to the war crimes tribunal are the losers of a war. No leader of ANY country would willingly subject himself to it. The ones who have been tried were captured in the aftermath of a war that thier country lost.
Name a leader that wasnt under arrest whio was tried.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Normally the Western countries step in to stop aggression of other governments who often are committing atrocities, justifying the attacks. In addition the western governments used to make a big deal about upholding the Geneva Convention and similar values thereby claiming "good guy" status.

Generally in the past, any war crimes committed by Western forces were only done by a small number of rogue elements, and therefore were not as a result of the governments directions, thereby enabling the western leaders are not held responsible.

That's why in the past the western leaders have avoided war crimes court case. Iraq's not over so we can't take that into account yet.

Answer 4

usually because they gloss over the fact that they are just as bad. Take the case of flight KAL 007 shot down over Sakhalin by the Soviet military when it was clearly encroaching onto Soviet territory. President Reagan reacted with outrage, closed down the aeroflot offices in New York and ordered a boycott of the Moscow olympics. However it seems it was OK for the USS Vincennes to shoot down an Iranian airbus in the Persian Gulf because 'we thought it was a fighter jet about to attack us' any military many with an ounce of common sense should know the difference between a damn airbus and a fighter jet ffs!!

Answer 5

Because it is only the losers in a war situation that will be dragged in front of a court. Western leaders only start wars with weaker countries that will not militarily defeat them and this is why they never end up in court

Answer 6

Because they walk softly and carry a big stick!

It also depends upon who wins the war.

Answer 7

So where do you think Hitler and his charming band of buddies came from? Sudan?

Ever heard of ther Nuremberg Trials?

Answer 8

F-cking brilliant question!
Who decides what is acceptable and what isn't?

Answer 9

they take Taylors view,but they have the power to resist,he don't.

Answer 10

They aren't going to!

We were convicted by the world court: Bush will get his, though he is trying to do an end run so he want get charged for torture, illegal camps, attacking a sovereign nation without provocation, violating International law, the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. They are just waiting for him to leave office!

CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

(MERITS)

Judgment of 27 June 1986

For its judgment on the merits in the case concerning military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua brought by Nicaragua against the United States of America, the Court was composed as follows:

President Nagendra Singh, Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni, Evensen, Judge ad hoc Colliard

*

* *

OPERATIVE PART OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT

THE COURT

(1) By eleven votes to four,

Decides that in adjudicating the dispute brought before it by the Application filed by the Republic of Nicaragua on 9 April 1984, the Court is required to apply the "multilateral treaty reservation"contained in proviso (c) to the declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court by the Government of the Untied States of America deposited on 26 August 1946;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Oda, Ago, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Ruda, Elias, Sette-Camara and Ni.

(2) By twelve votes to three,

Rejects the justification of collective self-defence maintained by the United States of America in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the subject of this case;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(3) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(4) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(5) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(6) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh, Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(7) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that, by the acts referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;


Recalls to both Parties their obligation to seek a solution to their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with international law.