4 ms·

> Every president has declared the ICJ irrelevant. The Pentagon would send tanks to the White House if a President so much as hinted at accepting ICJ jurisdicti

by 394549 8y ago

> Every president has declared the ICJ irrelevant. The Pentagon would send tanks to the White House if a President so much as hinted at accepting ICJ jurisdiction. Are you seriously claiming there would be a military coup in the US over something like that? The US has very strong taboos against military intervention in politics, much stronger than exist in many other countries. That you would make such a claim calls into question much that you've said about the US.

true_religion 8y ago
From the US point of view, accepting the ICJ is giving up soverigty to its old colonial masters, and wartime enemies. It is not a palatable position.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wahern 8y ago
I made a hyperbolic statement to emphasis that it's not politically viable. No, I don't think there'd be a coup. But I also think acceptance of ICC jurisdiction in the near future is about as likely as there being a coup. The military institutionally--the people that embody the military at the Pentagon, in Congress, in the White House, and elsewhere--would never allow it even if a majority of Americans were okay with it. ICJ (which I confused with the ICC earlier) is a little different because technically the U.S. has a veto as a member of the security council. Nonetheless, we only submit to ICJ jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis; which is to say, when we know we'll win or when we don't care one way or the other.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  Agree. I hope we also agree that this is extremely unfair, internationally speaking.
  - wahern 8y ago
    I hesitate to say its unfair because I don't know how to even begin to define what fair would look like. Look at the situation in Syria. When Obama refused significant interventions (despite his famous "red line"), Europe sharply criticized the U.S. notwithstanding the fact that Europe refused to intervene itself. This example shows how much of the world accepts and affirms the U.S. role as a so-called global policeman, at least when it suits them. Now imagine a situation where the U.S. bowed to pressure and intervened at Europe's behest, but subsequently was drawn into an ICC prosecution for some action in that country. That hardly seems fair, to assume both the direct cost of the conflict plus the cost of ex post criticisms by parties unwilling to participate themselves. Especially in light of the fact that, relatively speaking, the U.S. has well functioning military courts willing and capable of punishing crimes, particularly the types of serious crimes the ICC was established to handle. The existing situation is unfair in the sense that the U.S. is a wealthy hegemon, while most countries are poor and vulnerable. But the U.S. putting itself under ICC jurisdiction wouldn't substantially change that. It's such a complex situation I find it hard to criticize the U.S. here. I sort of like Clinton's approach of "plausible ratification", which appreciated both the real politick and idealist aspects. It lent the court legitimacy without risking a crisis where the U.S. repudiated jurisdiction or where the threat of repudiation caused ICC prosecutors or judges to pull their punches. Situations of the latter type would slowly erode the ICC's legitimacy.

by 394549 8y ago

true_religion 8y ago

From the US point of view, accepting the ICJ is giving up soverigty to its old colonial masters, and wartime enemies. It is not a palatable position.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

wahern 8y ago

I made a hyperbolic statement to emphasis that it's not politically viable. No, I don't think there'd be a coup. But I also think acceptance of ICC jurisdiction in the near future is about as likely as there being a coup. The military institutionally--the people that embody the military at the Pentagon, in Congress, in the White House, and elsewhere--would never allow it even if a majority of Americans were okay with it. ICJ (which I confused with the ICC earlier) is a little different because technically the U.S. has a veto as a member of the security council. Nonetheless, we only submit to ICJ jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis; which is to say, when we know we'll win or when we don't care one way or the other.

gonvaled 8y ago
Agree. I hope we also agree that this is extremely unfair, internationally speaking.
- wahern 8y ago
  I hesitate to say its unfair because I don't know how to even begin to define what fair would look like. Look at the situation in Syria. When Obama refused significant interventions (despite his famous "red line"), Europe sharply criticized the U.S. notwithstanding the fact that Europe refused to intervene itself. This example shows how much of the world accepts and affirms the U.S. role as a so-called global policeman, at least when it suits them. Now imagine a situation where the U.S. bowed to pressure and intervened at Europe's behest, but subsequently was drawn into an ICC prosecution for some action in that country. That hardly seems fair, to assume both the direct cost of the conflict plus the cost of ex post criticisms by parties unwilling to participate themselves. Especially in light of the fact that, relatively speaking, the U.S. has well functioning military courts willing and capable of punishing crimes, particularly the types of serious crimes the ICC was established to handle. The existing situation is unfair in the sense that the U.S. is a wealthy hegemon, while most countries are poor and vulnerable. But the U.S. putting itself under ICC jurisdiction wouldn't substantially change that. It's such a complex situation I find it hard to criticize the U.S. here. I sort of like Clinton's approach of "plausible ratification", which appreciated both the real politick and idealist aspects. It lent the court legitimacy without risking a crisis where the U.S. repudiated jurisdiction or where the threat of repudiation caused ICC prosecutors or judges to pull their punches. Situations of the latter type would slowly erode the ICC's legitimacy.