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

2012/06/30

Anti-Nuclear Protest Song "Love Me Tender" covered by Kiyoshiro Imawano (English adaptation)

The King's "Love Me Tender" covered by the late legendary Kiyoshiro Imawano as an anti-nuclear protest song. Ages after his contribution, his spirit of rock is being appreciated in Japan by all generations. Now, this is OUR soul song. He passed away on May 2, 2009. R.I.P.



LOVE ME TENDER

Original by: E. Presley& V. Matson
Arranged by: Kiyoshiro Imawano
English adaption by: Office BALÉS


What the FUCK? Nukes?
We don't need no stinkin' nukes!
What the FUCK? Stop lying.
We won't be fooled anymore!
What the FUCK? Stop explaining.
No matter how good you put it,
It's simple logic even I can understand

Radiation? We don't want no stinkin' radiation!
We wanna drink a healthy milk!

What the FUCK? Give us our money back!
Wake up and smell the leaks!
No matter how much you invest in your PR
to fool us ordinary people
We can see right through your dirty minds

What the FUCK are we doin'
tryin' to act big
at the heart of this damned world?
Oh my darling, I love you
I just wanna live a little longer

Love me tender, love me true
Never let me go
Oh my darling, I love you
Don't ever let 'em fool you

What the FUCK are we doin'
tryin' to act big
at the heart of this damned world?
Oh my darling, I love you
I just wanna live a little longer


Updated: December 9, 2013





¤ˤۤó¥֥�¼ ´Ķ­¥֥� ¸¶ȯ¡¦Êü¼Íǽ¤Ø(巻末資料)各キーワード別の現在の報道 

2012/06/16

REPORT: 「80年代に基地に枯れ葉剤」元米兵語る~ 漏れ出したドラム缶で普天間付近の住民が汚染の怖れ| The Japan Times Online


2012年6月15日

「80年代に基地に枯れ葉剤」元米兵語る

漏れ出したドラム缶で普天間付近の住民が汚染の怖れ


ジョン・ミッチェル(ジャパン・タイムズ特約記者)
米海兵隊が沖縄の普天間飛行場で大量の「エージェント・オレンジ」の貯蔵を埋却し、このため基地で管理部門の長を勤めた人物が被曝し、付近住民や基地の土地を汚染した可能性もあることが、ジャパン・タイムズによる元米兵のインタビューから判った。
News photo
裏切りの深さ:1981年夏に撮影された写真には、クリス・ロバーツが現場から掘り出した100本以上の漏出するドラム缶が写っている。(提供:クリス・ロバーツ)

ドラム缶は明らかにヴェトナム戦争終結期に沖縄で廃棄された―ダイオキシンを含んだ枯葉剤を健康上の理由で米国政府が禁止したころだが、ペンタゴンは安全に処理する要求を無視した後、宜野湾市の駐留地に埋却されたと、1970年代と80年代に勤務した元米兵が語った。
普天間閉鎖は、東京とワシントンが米軍再編のため格闘してきた苦い16年間の中心を占めているが、これらの疑いは、最終的に閉鎖された後ですら恐怖を引き起こすだろう。基地の下の土壌は酷い汚染のために民間共用となるまでに何十年も要する、同様のことは南ヴェトナムで「エージェント・オレンジ」を保管していた駐留地で起こっている。
この詳言を行った元米兵のひとりは、クリス・ロバーツ中佐(57)である。彼は米海兵隊普天間飛行場で、維持管理作業の全般を担当していた。
1981年夏、施設から流出した下水中に「容認しがたいほど高い値」の化学物質を検知したと上官から告げられた後、彼と建設部門の隊員は滑走路の末端近くを掘削したと、ロバーツは言う。
「私たちは並べて埋まっていた100本以上のドラム缶を掘り起こした。錆びて漏れていたそのドラム缶のいくつかは、周りにオレンジの印が付いていた」。現在、ニューハンプシャー州議員を務めるロバーツが、ジャパン・タイムズの最近のインタビューで語った。
「エージェント・オレンジ」―保管容器となったドラム缶の周囲に描かれた縞模様の色から名付けられたその物質の危険性は、1980年代初頭になってもまだ、広く周知されていなかった。だがロバーツは、上官が他の者たちの現場立ち入りを禁止にし、沖縄の作業員たちの手で秘密裏にトラックに積み込み、知らない場所へ移送したことから、疑念が起こったと言う。ドラム缶が撤去された後まもなく、台風が来て埋却場所は水であふれた。
News photo
クリス・ロバーツ元中佐
「水の上にはドラム缶から漏れ出した化学物質の膜が張っていた。部下たちと私はその中に降りていき、苦労して汚染された水を基地外に流し出したのです」とロバーツは語る。

ドラム缶の内容物に接したため、かつてはマラソンのトップランナーだったロバーツは、心臓疾患と前立腺癌を患い、肺がんの前駆細胞も見られる。彼の医師は「エージェント・オレンジ」被曝の症状だと指摘している。
自分の部下たちも同様に汚染されたのではと気になったロバーツは、米海兵隊と退役軍人省に対して、かれらと連絡を取るようにと何度も要請したが、無視されたと言う。
昨年1年間の間に、30人以上の元米兵たちがジャパン・タイムズに対して、米軍の主要な補給地であったヴェトナム戦期の沖縄におけるエージェント・オレンジ使用について語ってきた。なかには1970年代半ばまでの期間の「エージェント・オレンジ」使用について語った退役兵がいたが、1980年代という最近にその存在が疑われる詳言は、これが初めてのことである。
ペンタゴンは沖縄における枯葉剤の存在を一切否定している。しかし退役軍人省は、この島で化学物質によって発症した元兵士の少なくとも3名に対して補償を認定してきた。
3人のうち名前を公表したカルロス・ギャレイは、1975年普天間の指令維持部隊(Headquarters and Maintenance Squadron)に配属されていた。ギャレイはヴェトナム戦の後に駐留地に残されていた12本の「エージェント・オレンジ」のドラム缶を目撃したと証言している。
News photo
戦場にて:撮影年不明、21年間の従軍のあいだに撮影された、軍服に身を包んだクリス・ロバーツ。(提供:クリス・ロバーツ)
「そのうえ、他の部隊も残っていた保管分を廃棄するため自分たちのところへ送ってきた。そのため、国防省と海兵隊司令部に連絡をしたが、回答がなかった。1976年、私が任地を去るとき、ドラム缶はまだその場所に残されたままだった」と彼は語った。

ギャレイの説明とロバーツが発見したドラム缶の話は、沖縄に公式には存在しないと言われる「エージェント・オレンジ」貯蔵を、いかに撤去するべきか、高官の間に見られたであろう混乱を物語る。
1961年から1971年の間、米軍は、敵の農産物の収穫や隠れ家となるジャングルを一掃する目的で、7600万リットルの除草剤を東南アジア一帯に散布した。しかし、出生異常や深刻な病状とこの化学物質との関連が研究によって明らかにされた後、使用を禁止した。
1972年、米国は南ヴェトナムに貯蔵されていたものを北太平洋のジョンストン島に移送した。その後の処理をめぐる5年間に及ぶ論議の後に、最終的に1977年、海上で焼却処分された。
南ヴェトナムで「エージェント・オレンジ」の危険性を研究する科学者たちは、極めて高い毒性を持つダイオキシンは雨水に溶けないため、土壌中に残留し、数十年にわたって人々に害をもたらすことを明らかにしてきた。南ヴェトナムでは今日なお、米軍が「エージェント・オレンジ」貯蔵に使用した地区に、20箇所以上のダイオキシン危険区域がある。

普天間基地の付近は、住宅が近接し、10校の小学校を含む20校の学校があり、地元の人々は「世界で最も危険な軍事基地」と呼ぶ。学校は、ドラム缶が発見され汚染された水が廃棄された場所の付近にもある。
2003年から2010年に宜野湾市長を務めた伊波洋一は、米海兵隊は流出があった1981年に宜野湾市に対して通報を怠った、基地の地下は洞穴や湧水も多く、一帯はまだダイオキシン汚染が残っているのではないかとの懸念を、ジャパン・タイムズに語った。
「もしダイオキシンがまだ土壌中にあれば、サンプル調査からその存在を確認出来る。だが日本政府は在沖米軍の提供区域内でそのような調査の実施を許可しないだろう」と伊波は言う。
米軍は、日本の法制度の下で、民間に返還された軍用地跡地の浄化について責任を負わない。沖縄の駐留地を汚染したという好ましからざる記録を持っている。
1995年、恩納通信施設が民間利用に返されたが、水銀や毒性の高いPCBなどの汚染物質のため、いまだ再開発されないままである。1999年には、嘉手納弾薬庫の一部閉鎖跡地から、危険な水準の鉛と発がん性の六価クロムが土壌から発見された。  
現在、北谷町の人気の観光地区となっている場所に、1969年に数百ものエージェント・オレンジのドラム缶を埋却したことを元米兵が昨年の夏に詳言し、地元住民を驚かせた。
軍がドラム缶を埋却した理由について、退役軍人省の報復を怖れて名前を明かしたくないという、ある米兵によれば、「適切な処置を行うために国に移送するよりも埋めてしまったほうが安上がりだからだ。軍がいつも沖縄でやってきたことだ」と語った。

Original article: The Japan Times
Original translation: Project Disagree
http://www.projectdisagree.org/2012/06/1981japan-times9.html 
Adapted (and emphasis added) by: Office BALÉS

2012/06/13

Translation: Statement on the Restart of the Ooi Nuclear Power Plant issued by Shinshu Otani-ha (HIgashi Honganji) on 12 June 2012


Tentative Translation

Updated 06.12.2012Press Release: "Statement on the restart of the Ooi Nuclear Power Plant"
On June 12, Shinshu Otani-ha (Higashi Honganji) issued a statement in the name of its Chief Administrator against the intent expressed by Prime Minister Noda on June 8 to restart the Ooi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture.

Statement on the Restart of the Ooi Nuclear Power Plant


Since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the Shinshu Otani-ha has consistently worked towards the realization of "a world free of nuclear power-dependence." 

Through this very accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant,  we have been given a hard lesson that once nuclear materials are dispersed, it cannot be undone. We must also recognize that the myth of "safety" and "necessity" of nuclear power is a darkness created by us humans by putting economy before everything that is essential to our lives.


Given that there are still many people who suffer from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, we must question what could possibly be put before the lives of our people in restarting a nuclear power plant that was once stopped, after such an accident.


The Shinshu Otani-ha hereby express our deep dissatisfaction with the intent expressed by Prime Minister Noda to restart the Ooi Nuclear Power Plant. We also strongly implore that not only the Ooi nuclear power plant but all other nuclear power plants will cease to be restarted.

June 12, 2012

Ko Yasuhara
Chief Administrator
Shinshu Otani-ha (Higashi Honganji) 

translated by: Office BALÉS

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.

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 112010 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 142012.

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 sovereigntyterritorial 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 referralproprio 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 2012Liechtenstein 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

[edit]External links