I have to post some entries to test some problems with my blog setup. So here’s some vocabulary for the International Criminal Court:

|appeal|Berufung|
|authentic texts|verbindliche Wortlaute|
|chambers |Kammern|
|communication|Mitteilung|
|complementarity|Komplementarität|
|core crimes|Kernverbrechen|
|crime of aggression|Verbrechen der Aggression|
|crimes against humanity|Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit|
|custodial state|Gewahrsamsstaat|
|deferral of investigation or prosecution|Aufschub der Ermittlungen oder der Strafverfolgung|
|elements of crime|„Verbrechenselemente“ [sic]|
|escape|Flucht|
|excusing and disqualification of judges|Freistellung und Ausschluss von Richtern |
|forfeiture measures|Einziehungsanordnungen|
|genocide|Völkermord|
|International Criminal Court ICC|Internationaler Strafgerichtshof IStGh|
|jurisdiction ratione temporis|Gerichtsbarkeit ratione temporis|
|mental element|subjektive Tatbestandsmerkmale|
|misconduct before the Court|ordnungswidriges Verhalten vor Gericht|
|non-retroactivity ratione personae|Rückwirkungsverbot ratione personae|
|Office of the prosecutor|Anklagebehörde|
|preliminary ruling|vorläufige Entscheidung|
|prescription of law|gesetzliche Vorschriften|
|Presidency|Präsidium|
|Pre-Trial Chamber|Vorverfahrenskammer|
|prosecutor|Ankläger|
|Registry|Kanzlei|
|removal from office|Amtsenthebung|
|reparation to victims|Wiedergutmachung für die Opfer|
|revision|Wiederaufnahme|
|Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs|
|sentencing|Strafspruch|
|State Party|Vertragsstaat|
|superior orders|Anordnungen Vorgesetzter |
|trial|Hauptverfahren|
|Trial Chamber|Hauptverfahrenskammer|
|war crimes|Kriegsverbrechen|

There is a principle of complementarity – a bit like subsidiarity in the EU. It means that if a national court wants to try a case on one of the ICC crimes, it can, and the ICC will only try cases if the country (or countries?) in question don’t want to.

This explains why Germany enacted a Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Code of International Criminal Law).

English version here:

This, of course, is very similar to the Statute of Rome.

(See October 19th entry)

The two really exciting speakers at Nuremberg were Hans-Peter Kaul, the German judge at the ICC, who talked about Das Vermächtnis von Nürnberg – The Legacy of Nuremberg, and Lee A. Casey, from Washington D.C., who talked about the Position of the U.S. Administration on the ICC.

Before them, Klaus Kastner talked about The Nuremberg Trials. Vom gerechten Krieg zur Ächtung des Krieges – From a just war to rejection (outlawing? scorning?) of war, and Christoph Safferling about comparative procedure in the Statute of Rome.

Dr. WilliamSheldon, the director of the Deutsch-Amerikanisches Institut in Nuremberg, presided. There was some discussion afterwards, but it was with the audience, not much between the speakers, who probably know each other’s opinions after many years of negotiating.

There’s a report in German in the Nürnberger Nachrichten. The talks will be available on the site of the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg, which is a good site.

The symposium was held in the courtroom where the Nuremberg Trials took place. I counted only 29 in the audience at the beginning. Maybe there were 35 later. It was a pathetic turnout. I don’t know where these things are advertised. I heard as a member of the DAJV, the German-American Lawyers’ Association, and I think quite a lot of the audience came from the Amerikahaus, either employees or people who do English conversation courses there. There were at least two journalists there, because I talked to them in the break. There were at least two photographers – one of them had a large digital camera with huge lenses, which I greatly coveted. Obviously the speakers were speaking for a wider audience than us.

Hans-Peter Kaul was a superb speaker. He sounded as if he was speaking extempore on a subject he felt very strongly about.

There’s an article about him in Die Welt online, and an interview of a few months ago. He stated a number of facts about the American reasons for not signing the Statute of Rome, and mentioned a number of Americans who are not against the ICC. He also emphasized the limits of the Court’s powers, to do away with some misconceptions about it.

Lee A. Casey said he was speaking as a private person and merely about his own opinion. He believes the USA should never sign the Statute. His main argument was that America became a nation because its people wanted to govern themselves, and the ICC is not subject to review by the American people. It is neither dependent on the people nor answerable to them. Clinton recommended not ratifying the Statute, because it lacks enough safeguards. There have been over 600 complaints lodged with the Court, most of them relating to matters the Court has no jurisdiction over because they happened before July 1st, 2003. These complaints often refer to American actions in Iraq, and they show there is a politically motivated attempt to obtain convictions of American citizens. aother point: some of the (only) 92 States Parties to the Statute are not noted for their systems of justice and any of these could have a US citizen prosecuted if that citizen were on their territory.

There is a summary of the US arguments against the ICC in German here . They can also be seen in the American Service Members’ Protection Act. There is an excellent summary here, including a summary of steps that should be taken to prevent the ICC from being implemented.

White collar boxing is a form of boxing for people in white collar professions. Gleason’s Gym in the USA has been putting on events for 13 years:

bq. Gleason’s Gym created the concept of White Collar Boxing. The need for this program arose because of the numerous men and women that began training at the gym in the mid [90?]s. The boxing workout is addictive and the non-amateurs and professionals wanted to compete. After conferring unsuccessfully with the Amateur Boxing President and the New York State Athletic Commission, Gleason’s Gym created it’s own White Collar league.

bq. Both men and women can participate in the shows. The bouts are 3 rounds of tow minutes each. Now winner or loser is declared and both participants receive a trophy at the end of the contest. Registered amateur Boxers and Professional Boxers are not permitted in the White Collar Boxing program.

Now the Real Fight Club in England is advertising an event for lawyers on November 20th:

bq. Starring white collar workers learning the art under our supervision who work in the legal profession for leading institutions such as: the State of New York, Davis Polk and Wardell, Allen & Overy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, S J Berwin, Linklaters, CMS Cameron & McKenna, Richards Butler, Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan Chase Bank, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Judicium and many more – in 3 x 2 minute round non-decision bouts regulated by the IWCBA

I’m sure they’d take German lawyers as well. I believe some of them go to gyms.

I read about this in the Tuesday law section of the Times Online, for which there is or was free registration. They had an article about a New York judge being flown in.

bq. Judge Maier is no novice — he took up boxing in 1997 — but this is the first time that he will have fought at an event at which all the boxers are lawyers. He is the veteran of 51 white-collar fights, the last of which was against a performance artist who filmed their bout by means of a camera strapped to his head. “He kept telling me to hit him hard,” Judge Maier says. “But I wouldn’t. White-collar boxing is about fun, not hurting people.”

Denise Howell reports a new blog. The author is Andis Kaulins, a German of Latvian descent (see some Latvian tartans – I thought tartans were purely Scottish). He studied law in the USA and practiced as a lawyer there for many years, and he has taught Anglo-American Law Legal Research and Legal Writing (I’m not sure where the commas should go) in the law faculty at the University of Trier. He has a website and a blog, LawPundit. (Irritating clock follows your mouse cursor).

ADDED LATER: My snotty remark about the clock in the last line was unexpectedly effective, and the clock has now been removed (perhaps you would have liked it!)

At the Zeiser & Ress law bookshop near the Nuremberg law courts today, I found a small dictionary:

bq. Rechtsbegriffe deutsch – englisch – französisch
Prof. Dr. Dieter Krimphove
Die schnelle Übersetzungshilfe: deutsch-englisch-französiches Wörterbuch mit über 1.700 Begriffen aus den wichtigsten Rechtsgebieten. Auf der CD-ROM: alle Begriffe alphabetisch sortiert nach englischen und französischen Wörtern, plus Rechtsbegriffe im lateinischen Original.
ISBN 3-448-05636-7,
Best.-Nr.00758-0001
Preis: EUR 9.90

It looked good in parts, with some definitions in the German and some remarks on usage in the English. I nearly bought one, just out of curiosity, but then I saw that page 88 and page 96 were identical, and contents of the real page 88 was missing. That was in more than one copy, so if you’re interested, watch out.

Word seems to have got out that lawyers are not prepared to pay money for a more comprehensive (and useful) law dictionary, so this follows Köbler’s Rechtsenglisch and Lister/Veth Taschenwörterbuch Recht.

I found a photograph of Professor Dieter Krimphove (who has written three other taschenguides). I’m not sure that it was taken with a digital camera. Here’s a better one.