I pulled this information directly from the United Nations website. Seems to me much of this happens everyday in the united states but i don't see no blue helmets in this country to help those who are the victims of the crimes of genocide, aggression and crimes against humanity.
The crime of genocide
Support for the inclusion of the crime of genocide is virtually universal. Establishing an international criminal court where such crimes could be tried is felt by many to be an important reason for establishing the Court. Punishing the crime of genocide has been on the agenda of the United Nations since its formation.
Although crimes qualifying as genocide have been perpetrated since the earliest history of humankind, the term "genocide" is relatively new. It is said to combine the Greek genos, which means race or tribe, and the Latin cide, which means killing, and was coined to describe the Nazi activity in occupied Europe. Following the extermination of many Jews and members of other groups deemed undesirable by the Nazis in the Second World War, the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal recognized "persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds" as one of two categories of crimes against humanity, and established the principle of individual criminal responsibility for such crimes. As early as 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the principles of international law recognized by the Charter and Judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal (the Nürnberg principles). In 1948, it adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined genocide and proclaimed it a crime against international law, "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war". It was in the resolution adopting that Convention that the United Nations General Assembly first considered the establishment of an international criminal court. The General Assembly recognized that there would be an increasing need for an international judicial organ to try "certain crimes" under international law.
There is broad agreement to use the wording of the Genocide Convention in the draft statute for the Court. Article 5 of the draft statute has been taken directly from the Convention:
". . . Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
killing members of the group;
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The following acts shall be punishable:
conspiracy to commit genocide;
direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
attempt to commit genocide;
complicity in genocide."
Crimes against humanity
The definition of crimes against humanity in article 5 of the draft statute is based on the Nürnberg Charter and takes into account subsequent developments of international law, particularly relating to the recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals. Proposals for the definition of crimes against humanity include acts which would constitute such a crime when committed in a widespread and/or systematic manner, and/or on a massive scale, and/or on specified grounds.
The definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Nürnberg Charter included the requirement that the prohibited acts be committed in connection with crimes against peace or war crimes. A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime. In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, "It is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity do not require a connection to international armed conflict."
According to the draft statute, the definition of this crime would include the following prohibited acts:
deportation or forcible transfer of population;
rape or other sexual abuse of comparable gravity, or enforced prostitution;
persecution against a group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious (and possibly gender) grounds;
enforced disappearance of persons;
other inhumane acts causing serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;
detention, imprisonment or deprivation of liberty in violation of international law.
In the draft statute, extermination is defined as including the infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.
Torture may be defined as it is in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, which requires that the acts be committed by a public official. Or torture may be defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, but excluding pain and suffering arising only from lawful sanctions.
The increasing number of forced disappearances of persons throughout the world prompted the United Nations General Assembly to adopt, in 1992, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Under the Declaration, the term enforced disappearance also covers situations when persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will by or with the approval of a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that abduction has taken place and the denial of information on the fate of those abducted, thereby placing them outside the protection of the law.
The crime of aggression
There is support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the Court's jurisdiction, and there is opposition. Part of the debate centers on finding an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression. While arguments to include aggression centre on its extreme gravity and international repercussions, arguments against its inclusion centre on the lack of a sufficiently precise definition. Another part of the debate focused on the role of the Security Council in this regard. Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council "shall determine" the existence of an "act of aggression". Consequently, the issue is inseparably linked to the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. It has been a difficult task to find an acceptable way to reflect in a balanced manner the responsibility of the Security Council, on the one hand, and the judicial independence of the Court, on the other.
The Nürnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the Nürnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.
Early efforts in the United Nations to create an international criminal court were set aside while the international community set out to define aggression. In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a definition of aggression. It defined aggression as necessarily being the act of a State, and described the specific actions of one State against another which constitute aggression. In its work on the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the United Nations International Law Commission, echoing the Nürnberg Tribunal, also concluded that individuals could be held accountable for acts of aggression. The Commission indicated the specific conduct for which individuals could be held accountable -- initiating, planning, preparing or waging aggression -- and that only those individuals in positions of leadership who order or actively participate in the acts could incur responsibility. Its definition focused on individual accountability rather than on the rule of international law which prohibits aggression by a State.
The difficulty, according to some, lies in framing a workable definition of aggression which would apply to a wide range of situations. The definition must be precise enough for individuals to know what acts are prohibited; and it must be general enough to cover a wide variety of acts which may occur in the future, and which may not yet have been conceived of. It must also describe the magnitude of the violation of the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 of the UN Charter that would constitute the crime of aggression for which individuals may be held responsible and punished.
Some States are of the view that excluding aggression would leave a significant gap in the Court's jurisdiction. Another reason supporting its inclusion is also one of the strongest reasons put forward for creating the Court: to break the cycle of impunity. To hold individuals accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity while granting impunity to the architects of the conflict in which those crimes occurred is not justifiable. Others also hope that holding individuals responsible for the crime of aggression will act as a deterrent, and that by deterring an aggressor from beginning a conflict that may lead to a conflagration, the attendant war crimes and crimes against humanity might therefore also be prevented. Some also believe that it would be retrogressive to adopt a statute that does not include the crime of aggression 50 years after Nürnberg recognized such conduct as an international crime.
Some of those seeking a way to include aggression have proposed lessening the need for a definition by allowing the determination of an act of aggression to rest with the Security Council. The argument is, if States commit aggression for which individuals can be held accountable, then the Security Council should determine whether an act of aggression has been committed by a State and the Court should determine whether an individual was responsible for that act. This proposal elicits a concern regarding Security Council involvement which is also heard in other contexts: linking the work of the Court to the Security Council may lead to politicization of the Court. Some States are concerned regarding any connection between the Security Council and the Court.
The draft statute contains two options concerning the definition of aggression. One possible definition lists the specific acts for which an individual in a position of responsibility could be held accountable for aggression. The following acts would constitute the crime of aggression under this definition: planning, preparing, ordering, initiating, or carrying out an armed attack, or the use of force, or a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or agreements, by a State, against the territorial integrity of another State, against the provisions in the UN Charter.
A second possible definition provides a list of acts constituting aggression, which includes the following:
invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation, or annexation of territory by the use of force
bombardment by armed forces of a State against the territory of another State
the blockade of ports or coasts of a State
the use of armed forces of a State which are within the territory of another State in violation of the terms of an agreement between those States
a State allowing its territory to be used by another State for an act of aggression against a third State
a State sending armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries to carry out grave acts of armed force against another State
Consideration of the definition of aggression will continue at the Conference in Rome.