photo by kind courtesy of @atuktekt (*click the photo for details)

2012/05/15

FACT CHECK: Obama DID NOT sign the Executive Order to 'rejoin' the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Original Japanese version of this article can be found here. ←日本語版はこちら

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


On 3 May 2012, Gordon Duff, a Senior Editor of an independent publication related to (but NOT an official gazette) the U.S. Veterans Association, Veterans Today ("VT"), published a personal blog article entitled "Obama Rejoins ICC, US No Longer "Rogue" State". The article reported that U.S. President Obama has recently signed an Executive Order ("EO") "rejoining" the International Criminal Court ("the Court"). The news spread like a brush fire through out the Web but with no substantial evidence corroborating to the alleged facts stated in the article. If indeed this was true, the whole world should rejoice the news, welcome and commend President Obama to have taken such a bold step.
 
That being said, however, this blog challenges to conclude that through a thorough fact check on the alleged report, there was no evidence whatsoever corroborating to what was said in the VT article. This blog also concludes that even if such action was taken in secret as a 'secret EO', such action will not have the desired and/or feared effect of those on each side of the political spectrum.

This blog warns that IF President Obama is attempting to override the Constitutional limitations as President to authorize himself to 'ratify' a multilateral treaty without Congressional approval or due process of the law it will create a dangerous precedent on the legal foundations of limiting the power of the President.

The process of verification has been documented in a compilation of tweets in Japanese (partly subtitled in English). This is the English version of that report on my personal fact check mission. Because I wanted to know the fact, and the fact should be made known to all of those concerned.

CONTENDING FORCES & NOTES ON AUTHOR'S BIAS


There appears to be two contending forces behind this news report; one that supports the alleged move and one that is wary of the alleged move: the former, lead by prominent individuals like  Bill Wood shown here on his video, who commend the President for taking such a bold action against the "dark forces", and latter, like many of those in the U.S. Veterans Association who do not support the U.S. joining the Court in the first place because it will take away the rights of the U.S. solidiers. They would instead contend that the President has fallen to "globalists" that conspire to rob the American people of their sovereign rights as U.S. citizens..

We must note that VT comes from the latter background. VT is known for its anti-zionist (synonymous of "globalists" in many anti-zionist quarters) campaign, as can be seen from this banner shown on their Website.


The Court has long been a source of distrust and disgust to many who oppose globalist conspiracies since its inception in the early 1990's when the U.S. was still an active party to the endeavor. As I recall, it was once even thought as the "globalist headquarters". It is assumed that the opposition was derived from the knowledge of the fact that CICC, the international coalition of NGOs that spearheaded the agreement to hold an international conference in Rome in 1998 (which led to the establishment of the Court) was led by WFM or World Federalist Movement, which in contrary to their suppositions is supported by many American foundations such as Ford Foundation and McArthur Foundation.

So I initially assumed that Gordon Duff, a Senior Editor of VT, a journal "representing the position of members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy," that supports the United States "against all enemies foreign and domestic" and that believes the majority of the members of their government, including the Supreme Court, "currently serve agendas absent loyalty to the American people and the Constitution,"  (actual excerpts from their "About VT" section) within the confines of their internal codes, WOULD NOT be able to write an article that is supportive of a Presidential action to "rejoin" an organizatoin that has long been thought as a "globalist headquarter". Furthermore, the article displays ignorance about the actual behavior of the Court bound by the statutory limitations that seeks to justly balance the power of the Court and sovereign rights of nations.

However, this blog also noted that in spite of the lack of basic knowledge on the working s of the Court, the author of the VT article expressly notes in its disclaimer that the "views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners."  So this blog assumes that despite the background of being a VT Senior Editor, this specific article was written in the author's personal capacity to express his support for the reportedly signing of the EO to "rejoin" the Court without bias, which is evident in the tone of his article where he concludes by saying this:

When we see Interpol put the cuffs on McCain and Lieberman and “perp walk” them out of the Senate, we will know we may get America back.


FINDINGS OF THE MISSION


While acknowledging that the author's report is not biased from the VT's point of view, his article still lacks substance. It does not detail WHEN and WHAT exactly President Obama has signed. It lacks the specifics. However, this blog also concludes that even if this was a 'secret act' of the President signing a 'secret' EO, it still will not have the effect that either the "supporters" or "opponents" would desire or fear. The power of the President vested to him by the Constitution is limited, especially in sigining an international treaty. Below is a summary of the detailed findings to that effect.

DISCOVERED FACTS: Public Information
Summary of facts discovered following all available public information on Presidential actions as of May 5, 2012.

  1. There are no indications of the Court in the list of Presidents's recent EOs
  2. There are no indications of the Court in any of the recent individual EOs:
  3. There are no indications of the Court in the list of President's recent Proclamations
* Note there were only one (1) case of EO related to ICPO or Interpol, signed in 2009, Executive Order 13524.


DISCOVERED FACTS: Experts information
Summary of facts discovered asking ICC and Washington experts on Presidential actions as of May 5, 2012.

  1. CICC has not confirmed the information of President Obama signing such EO.
  2. AMICC (American NGO Coalitions for ICC) flatly rejected as "fundamentally fictional"

UNDISPUTED FACTS: 
Summary of facts surrounding the actions, authorities, conditions, and limitations pertaining to "rejoining"the Rome Statute and/or any international treaty in reference to Constitutional powers vested to the President, his relationship with the Congress, and in accordance to international customary laws and the Rome Statute in particular.

  1. Unless it is is a bilateral executive agreement signed between one or more executive branches of the government parties to the agreement, U.S. President CANNOT RATIFY an international treaty.
  2. According to the Constitution, any international treaty MUST be approved by the Congress (Senate) with signature of the President to enact as a national law.
  3. Under customary law, any multilateral treaty or convention MUST be ratified, accepted, or acceded to through the conditions prescribed under such treaty or convention.
  4. Under the Rome Statute, the Statute "is subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval" by a signatory state. This reverts the authority to approve the treaty for ratification to the Congress under the Constitution.

Posted by at 0 件のコメント:
Labels:

2012/05/14

Archive: Wikipedia article on the Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court


Amendments to the Romes Statute of the International Criminal Court on the Crime of Aggression in Wikipedia
An archival copy made before posted on Wikipedia (*with occasional additions)

Crime of aggression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The　Crime of Aggression is a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ("the Statute") that was agreed to fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC or "the Court") in the 2010 Kampala Review Conference ("the Conference") by its State Parties.[1][2] At the Conference in June 11, 2010 a total of 111 State Parties to the Court agreed by consensus to adopt resolution RC/Res.6 to accept the definition of the crime and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over this crime[3].
The adopted amendments to the Statute included deletion of Article 5.2 of the Rome Statute that formerly stated "The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."[4] and additions of Article 8 bis and Article 15 bis/ter that defined the "crime of aggression" and conditions on the exercise of jurisdiction over the "crime of aggression," respectively.
The relevant revisions to the Statute, however has not been entered into force yet as of May 14, 2012.

Contents

  [hide] 

[edit]Definition

Under the Statute, the definition of "crime of aggression" is stated as follows:

[edit]Article 8bis

1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or anyannexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

[edit]Exercise of jurisdiction

Under the Statute, the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction for the "crime of aggression" by the Court are as defined below. With these provisions, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction over the "crime of aggression" in one or all of the following three ways.
  1. With prior authorization of the Pre-trial Division and determination by the Security Council
  2. State referral, proprio motu
  3. Security Council referral

[edit]Article 15 bis

Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)
  1. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13, paragraphs (a) and (c), subject to the provisions of this article.
  2. The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.
  3. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.
  4. The Court may, in accordance with article 12, exercise jurisdiction over a crime of aggression, arising from an act of aggression committed by a State Party, unless that State Party has previously declared that it does not accept such jurisdiction by lodging a declaration with the Registrar. The withdrawal of such a declaration may be effected at any time and shall be considered by the State Party within three years.
  5. In respect of a State that is not a party to this Statute, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression when committed by that State’s nationals or on its territory.
  6. Where the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation in respect of a crime of aggression, he or she shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. The Prosecutor shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the situation before the Court, including any relevant information and documents.
  7. Where the Security Council has made such a determination, the Prosecutor may proceed with the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression.
  8. Where no such determination is made within six months after the date of notification, the Prosecutor may proceed with the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression in accordance with the procedure contained in article 15, and the Security Council has not decided otherwise in accordance with article 16.
  9. A determination of an act of aggression by an organ outside the Court shall be without prejudice to the Court’s own findings under this Statute.
  10. This article is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to other crimes referred to in article 5.

[edit]Article 15 ter

Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)
  1. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13, paragraph (b), subject to the provisions of this article.
  2. The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.
  3. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.
  4. A determination of an act of aggression by an organ outside the Court shall be without prejudice to the Court’s own findings under this Statute.
  5. This article is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to other crimes referred to in article 5.

[edit]Entry into force

Under the Statute, all and each revisions to the Statute must be ratified by minimum of thirty (30) States Parties. In addition to this general provision, entry into force of the revisions concerning the "Crimes of Aggression" require the following, which is required for both provisions on state referrals (15 bis) and Security Council referrals (15 ter):
  1. The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.
  2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.

States Parties to the Amendments

As of 14 May 2012, one (1) State Party has ratified or acceded to the amendments to the Rome Statute.[5] In 8 May 2012, Liechtenstein ratified the Amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court thereby becoming the first state to ratify the amendments[6] [7]. The states parties are shown in alphabetical order according to their official name within the Assembly of States Parties.[8]

State partySignedRatified or accededEntry into force
 Liechtenstein11 June 20108 May 20129 May 2013

[edit]Related Provisions

The following article(s) are related with the adopted amendments concerning the provision on "crime of aggression".

[edit]Article 13

Exercise of jurisdiction
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or
(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.

[edit]See Also

[edit]Notes and references

  1. ^ Review Conference of the Rome Statute concludes in Kampala
  2. ^ "ICC nations define crime of aggression". Retrieved 26 December 2011.
  3. ^ [http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf "Resolution RC/Res.6 !"]. Retrieved 14 May 2012.
  4. ^ Part 2. Jurisdiction, admissibility and applicable law. Article 5.

[edit]External links

Posted by at 0 件のコメント:
Labels:

アーカイブ：ICCローマ規程における侵略犯罪のWikipedia項目（日本語版）


Wikipedia項目としての侵略犯罪に関するローマ規程の改正条項

Wikipedia掲載前の部分的自己コピー（※適宜一部更新あり）

侵略犯罪（しんりゃくはんざい、Crime of Aggression）は、国際刑事裁判所規程に定められる国際刑事裁判所の管轄犯罪の一つである。2010年6月11日、カンパラで開かれたローマ規程再検討会議において、その定義及び管轄権行使の手続きに関する改正決議（RC/Res.6）が参加国111カ国のコンセンサスにより採択された。但し、改正は2012年5月現在発効していない。

目次

  [非表示] 

定義 [編集]

国際刑事裁判所規程（以下、規程）における定義は、次の通りである。

抄訳 [編集]

第8条の2　侵略犯罪
一、この規程の適用上、「侵略犯罪」とは、国の政治的または軍事的行動を、実質的に管理を行うかまたは指示する地位にある者による、その性質、重大性および規模により、国際連合憲章の明白な違反を構成する侵略の行為の計画、準備、着手または実行をいう。
二、第1項の適用上、「侵略の行為」とは、他国の主権、領土保全または政治的独立に対する一国による武力の行使、または国際連合憲章と両立しない他のいかなる方法によるものをいう。以下のいかなる行為も、宣戦布告に関わりなく、1974年12月14日の国際連合総会決議3314（XXIX）に一致して、侵略の行為とみなすものとする。
a. 一国の軍隊による他国領域への侵入または攻撃、若しくは一時的なものであってもかかる侵入または攻撃の結果として生じる軍事占領、または武力の行使による他国領域の全部若しくは一部の併合
b. 一国の軍隊による他国領域への砲爆撃または国による他国領域への武器の使用
c. 一国の軍隊による他国の港または沿岸の封鎖
d. 一国の軍隊による他国の陸軍、海軍または空軍若しくは海兵隊または航空隊への攻撃
e. 受け入れ国との合意で他国の領域内にある一国の軍隊の、当該合意に規定されている条件に反した使用、または当該合意の終了後のかかる領域における当該軍隊の駐留の延長
f. 他国の裁量の下におかれた領域を、その他国が第三国への侵略行為の準備のために使用することを許す国の行為
g. 他国に対する上記載行為に相当する重大な武力行為を実行する武装した集団、団体、不正規兵または傭兵の国による若しくは国のための派遣、またはその点に関する国の実質的関与

原文 [編集]

Article 8bis　Crime of Aggression
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

管轄権 [編集]

認定 [編集]

規程の適用上、侵略行為の認定（決定）は、国際刑事裁判所又は国際連合安全保障理事会の決定により行うことができるが、国際刑事裁判所は、裁判所以外の機関による「侵略行為」の決定に影響されない。（第15条の2）

行使 [編集]

規程の適用上、国際刑事裁判所は次の3つの方法で「侵略犯罪」に関する管轄権を行使できる。（第15条の2及び3）
  • 自発的行使: 予審裁判部の許可がある前提での検察官の職権による捜査の開始（第15条の2）
  • 国の自発的付託による行使: 第13条(a)および(c)項に従った行使（第15条の2）
  • 安全保障理事会の付託による行使: 13条(b)項に従った行使（第15条の3）

発効 [編集]

ローマ規程の適用上、規程の改正には30の締約国による個々の改正条項への批准が必要となる。侵略犯罪については、再検討会議において以下の発効要件が合意された。（第15条の2及び3共通）
  • 30の締約国が改正条項の批准または受諾を行った1年後
  • 締約国の多数により2017年1月1日以降に行われる決定に従うこと

締約国 [編集]

2012年5月14日現在、ローマ規程の改正条項に批准した締約国は1カ国である。2012年5月8日、リヒテンシュタインが「侵略犯罪に関する国際刑事裁判所ローマ規程の改正」に批准し、初の締約国となった。[1] [2].
締約国署名批准又は加入発効
リヒテンシュタインの旗 リヒテンシュタイン2010年6月11日2012年5月8日2013年5月9日

関連条項 [編集]

第13条　管轄権の行使
(a) 締約国が次条の規定に従い、これらの犯罪の一又は二以上が行われたと考えられる事態を検察管に付託する場合
(b) 国際連合憲章第七章の規定に基づいて行動する安全保障理事会がこれらの犯罪の一又は二以上が行われたと考えられる事態を検察管に付託する場合
(c) 検察管が第十五条の規定に従いこれらの犯罪に関する捜査に着手した場合　
第15条の2 侵略犯罪についての管轄権の行使（国の自発的付託）
  1. 裁判所は、この条の規定に従うことを条件として、第13条(a)および(c)項に従って侵略犯罪についての管轄権を行使することができる。
  2. 裁判所は、侵略犯罪に関する管轄権については、30の締約国が改正条項の批准または受諾を行った1年後にのみ行使することができる。
  3. 裁判所は、規程の改正の採択のために必要とされるのと同じ締約国の多数により2017年1月1日以降に行われる決定に従うことを条件として、本条に従って侵略犯罪についての管轄権を行使するものとする。
  4. 裁判所は、締約国が、裁判所書記に対して行う宣言によりかかる管轄権を受諾しないことを事前に宣言していない限り、第12条に従って、締約国が行った侵略行為から生じる、侵略犯罪についての管轄権を行使することができる。かかる宣言の撤回は、いつでも効力を有することができ、また3年以内に当事国により検討されるものとする。
  5. 本規程の当事国でない国に関しては、裁判所は、その国の国民またはその領域において行われた侵略犯罪についてその管轄権を行使しないものとする。
  6. 検察官が、侵略犯罪に関する捜査を進める合理的な基礎があると結論する場合には、まず最初に安全保障理事会が関係国により行われた侵略行為について決定を下したか否かを確かめるものとする。検察官は、あらゆる関連情報および文書を含む、裁判所における事態を、国際連合事務総長に通知するものとする。
  7. 安全保障理事会がかかる決定を下した場合には、検察官は侵略犯罪に関する捜査を進めることができる。
  8. 通報の日から6か月以内にかかる決定が下されない場合には、検察官は、予審裁判部が第15条に規定する手続に従って侵略犯罪に関する捜査の開始を許可したこと、および安全保障理事会が第16条に従って別段の決定をしていないことを条件として、侵略犯罪に関する捜査を進めることができる。
  9. 裁判所以外の機関による侵略行為の決定は、本規程の下での裁判所独自の認定に影響を及ぼすものではない。
  10. 本条は、第5条に言及されている他の罪に関する管轄権の行使に関する規定に影響を及ぼすものではない。
第15条の3　侵略犯罪についての管轄権の行使（安全保障理事会の付託）
  1. 裁判所は、この条の規定に従うことを条件として、第13条(b)項に従って侵略犯罪についての管轄権を行使することができる。
  2. 裁判所は、侵略犯罪に関する管轄権については、30の締約国が改正条項の批准または受諾を行った1年後にのみ行使することができる。
  3. 裁判所は、規程の改正の採択のために必要とされるのと同じ締約国の多数により2017年1月1日以降に行われる決定に従うことを条件として、本条に従って侵略犯罪についての管轄権を行使するものとする。
  4. 裁判所以外の機関による侵略行為の決定は、本規程の下での裁判所独自の認定に影響を及ぼすものではない。
  5. 本条は、第5条に言及されている他の罪に関する管轄権の行使に関する規定に影響を及ぼすものではない。

各国の立場 [編集]

日本 [編集]

日本政府は2010年の再検討会議において、次の3つの理由から規程改正の採択のコンセンサスには参加せず、但しそれを阻止することも行わない対応をとった。
  1. 現行ローマ規程の改正手続との関係で疑義が残ること;
  2. 締約国間及び締約国と非締約国間の法的関係を複雑なものとすること;
  3. 非締約国の侵略行為による侵略犯罪を必要以上に裁判所の管轄権行使の条件から外していること.
政府代表団の団長である小松一郎政府代表（駐スイス大使）は、規定改正に関する投票を行うその前後の『投票理由説明』においてこう述べた。
  • 採択前: 「きわめて不承不承ながら、各国代表団が本改正案を現行案のまま支持するというのであれば、日本政府はコンセンサスを妨げることは致しません。（... it is with a heavy heart that I declare that, if all the other delegations are prepared to support the proposed draft resolution as it stands, Japan will not stand in the way of a consensus.）
  • 採択後:「政府代表団の団長として、この岐路に置いて申し述べておかなければならないことがあります。それは今後の我が国のICCへの協力は、我が国が疑義を唱える改正手続に関する問題の解決にかかっているということであります。（As the head of my Delegation, appointed to represent Japan in this Review Conference, it is my duty to register, at this juncture, that the future cooperation of Japan with the ICC will hinge upon whether the ASP can deliver on this with your cooperation. ）」

関連項目 [編集]

参考文献 [編集]

外部リンク [編集]

Posted by at 0 件のコメント:
Labels:
登録: 投稿 (Atom)