tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post7869826365147811261..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Cold waterRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60831704969458773442010-04-17T21:37:07.690+10:002010-04-17T21:37:07.690+10:00Good points, all.
In the Expelled case, I recall ...Good points, all.<br /><br />In the <i>Expelled</i> case, I recall experiencing the unholy delight which comes when creationists — who set themselves up as the arbiter of right and wrong — get their noses thumped on ethical grounds. As far as that goes, I'm as guilty as the next evolutionist on the Blogohedron. When the <i>Schadenfreude</i> wore off, though, I could see the merit in a broad interpretation of "fair use" law. A rising tide floats all boats, even the one with Ben Stein in it, etc. I probably should have been more explicit about that, back at the time; too late now, I suppose. Oh, well.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-74907123063950260372010-04-17T12:42:26.727+10:002010-04-17T12:42:26.727+10:00Blake, I was thinking more of commenters than actu...Blake, I was thinking more of commenters than actual posters. A lot of people commenting in various places don't seem to be aware of such things as problems about extraterritoriality, the narrow definition of crimes against humanity in the Rome Statute, etc., and/or seem very willing to trust Robertson that all the problems can/should be overcome.<br /><br />But of course there are good reasons to be worried about laws with extraterritorial effect. The US can't arrest me when I visit there for something I did back in Australia. Not unless there are special circumstances like Australia asking them to and wanting to extradite me. Prima facie, the UK can't just arrest the Pope for something he did back in Italy/Vatican City, even if there were no issue about head of state immunity and all the rest of it.<br /><br />We had this problem with extraterritoriality with David Hicks, when the US high-handedly imprisoned an Australian citizen for things he did in Afghanistan. Generally speaking, that's not a good idea.<br /><br />There are also reasons why certain immunities are given to diplomats and heads of state. And there are reasons why the Rome Statute is drafted so narrowly with a guarantee in Article 22 (I think it is) that it won't be interpreted expansively. No one wants it to take over a whole lot of domestic criminal law or to create far-reaching and unclear extraterritorial jurisdiction. That's important even it means that some bad guys are harder to get at than would otherwise be the case.<br /><br />Hence my analogy with the Expelled/Yoko Ono case. There were and are good reasons to want a broad and robust "fair use" defence, even though it helped the bad guys in that case.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40237484509020108632010-04-17T08:58:33.257+10:002010-04-17T08:58:33.257+10:00"In this case, I think he's almost certai..."In this case, I think he's almost certainly wrong if he thinks there's any reasonable legal prospect that the pope could be arrested in the UK for crimes under any municipal jurisdiction or under international law. That's not going to be a popular conclusion among my friends, but it's what I honestly believe."<br /><br />FWIW, I haven't seen too many people expressing the opinion that the legalistic noises against the pope would lead to an actual arrest. (PZ Myers: "I have no illusions that the Pope will actually be perp-walked back onto an airplane and sent away from England".) So, while your conclusion will most likely come as a splash of cold water, it might not be all that "unpopular", in the sense of people actually disagreeing with it.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-12528719820267325692010-04-17T01:03:46.648+10:002010-04-17T01:03:46.648+10:00Actually, Matthew, the argument about ambassadoria...Actually, Matthew, the argument about ambassadorial representation does not relate to whether the Vatican is a country. If I said or implied that, I misspoke. It's actually a bit more complicated than that.<br /><br />Anyway, we can discuss it tomorrow. I'm mainly here to clean up after the troll.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9427993469502031302010-04-16T18:56:43.045+10:002010-04-16T18:56:43.045+10:00The argument over the Vatican having ambassadorial...The argument over the Vatican having ambassadorial representation is not as strong as you might think.<br /><br />The UK sends an ambassador to the UN, yet I doubt anyone will try to argue the UN is a country. In addition a number of non-Nato countries send an ambassador to represent them at Nato, and the same is the case with the EU.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08574811187635452616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55068550425797095702010-04-16T16:04:29.252+10:002010-04-16T16:04:29.252+10:00Go away Mabus, you pest; the adults are talking. W...Go away Mabus, you pest; the adults are talking. What on earth are you trying to achieve?<br /><br />As a non-lawyer, but with a little faint familiarity with international law, I share Russell's scepticism about Robertson's arguments on this point. <br /><br />The Vatican is an internationally recognised nation-state, and has been so for many years. It is treated as such by other states, sends ambassadors (Papal Pro-Nuncios) abroad and behaves in most ways as a normal state. To follow Robertson on this point would seem to be a drastic departure from normal international legal practice.<br /><br />I am also not aware of any currently serving head of state being arrested, though of course we have the precedents of ex-heads of state facing charges - notably Pinochet, and especially Milosevic. Since we rarely see ex-Popes, I doubt if we'll ever see the Bishop of Rome under arrest.<br /><br />But of course the whole episode has further dramatised the scandal, and maybe, just maybe, gives some slight comfort to the victims. Let's not forget that very few of them have seen anything like justice in this sorry mess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87211963497851588322010-04-16T12:34:36.895+10:002010-04-16T12:34:36.895+10:00No, but if that's what you're doing you sh...No, but if that's what you're doing you should give people a sense that that's what you're doing. I think a lot of people don't realise that Robertson's claims are very speculative and probably wrong in law. Robertson gives the impression that the pope's claim to head-of-state immunity is weak. That's not the case at all.<br /><br />Of course I agree with you about the need for legal creativity. But that wasn't my point. The point, well among other things, is that we must be wary of favouring a legal view because it is against the interests of the bad guys in a particular case. Hence my revisiting of the Expelled litigation, where so many people could only see that the makers of <i>Expelled</i> were the bad guys, and it clouded their judgment - both about the likely legal rights of the parties and about what the principles behind intellectual property law.<br /><br />I see this sort of thing happen a lot.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39178952436885063872010-04-16T12:24:48.857+10:002010-04-16T12:24:48.857+10:00As a former lawyer (very former, I should add), le...As a former lawyer (very former, I should add), let me first say that while my area of expertise was in criminal law, it wasn't in international criminal law. Nevertheless I've followed Robertson's career over the years, and take issue with your suggestion that there is anything intrinsically wrong in his taking an "expansive" interpretation of the relevant law, or his "pushing very hard against the limits of the law". That is precisely what he has done throughout his career as a human rights lawyer. It is only through lawyers (and subsequently the judiciary) pushing those limits that precedent law exists at all. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it doesn't. That's the way the law works. <br /><br />The legal issue of whether the Pope is a Head of State and thus entitled to immunity is absolutely open, as far as I am aware. That the Vatican has observer status at the UN does not necessarily speak to this question, which I would love to see legally determined.Margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15456006889868172386noreply@blogger.com