6 ms·

It's not like you setting up your private court at all. It's more like the UN (the majority of UN member states are also ICC members). It has plenty of legitima

It's not like you setting up your private court at all. It's more like the UN (the majority of UN member states are also ICC members). It has plenty of legitimacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

colechristensen 6y ago
To those parties who accepted the treaty, sure. We didn’t. The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours. There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.
- boudin 6y ago
  World peace? Did you ever looked at all the wars that happened since? Many involving the US army ... And not in a nice way... If you speak of the western world, the main reason for peace is the construction of the european union, creating much more cooperation between countries that had always been fighting each other. US foreign policy is not driven by peace, freedom or whatever propanganda created to have people's support but by self-interest. It's the same for any country.
- watwut 6y ago
  > the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony Have you had a look at American foreign policy last eight decades? > and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours. Yeah, that sounds totally like what peace and democracy loving entity would say.
- fredophile 6y ago
  > The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. I'll buy that argument as long as Americans stay inside their own borders. When you choose to enter another country you are subject to their laws whether you agree with them or not. Afghanistan has signed on to the ICC and the activities being investigated took place in Afghanistan. Having said that I don't expect US policy to change on this issue regardless of who wins the next election. Letting US soldiers be tried for war crimes is bad politics.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. When a US citizen is in another country, they are under the power of the courts of that other country. Why is this so hard to understand? The US military members, when in Afghanistan, are subject to Afghanistan courts jurisdiction—one of those courts is the ICC because Afghanistan gave the ICC jurisdiction by signing the treaty. When the CIA operatives were in Italy they were under the jurisdiction of the Italian courts and were thus so convicted: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case If you do not want to be under the jurisdiction of non-US courts then do not leave the US. Once you step over the border you have to follow the rules of the other country.
llimos 6y ago
Legally, it is like a private court. From the point of view of someone who is not a member, it's the same thing. Let's take a hypothetical scenario. The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries? 'Legitimacy' is a moral concept. The legal concept that matters is 'jurisdiction'.
- drran 6y ago
  They may not have the right, but they may have the power. Also, more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies, so majority of states are democracies.
  - lazyjones 6y ago
    > more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies, They're not. The current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index lists 22 "full democracies", 64 "flawed democracies" and 24 "hybrid regimes".
    - drran 6y ago
      22+64 = 86 86/167 = 51.5% Majority of countries are democracies.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        86 < 100 less than 100 states are democracies Whether they are a majority or not is irrelevant to what lazyjones said.
        drran 6y ago
        Hybrid regimes are defined as "Hybrid regimes are nations with regular electoral frauds, preventing them from being fair and free democracies.", so they ARE democracies with regular electoral frauds. 86 + 24 = 110 > 100 More than 100 states are democracies.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
How much legitimacy does the UN Human Rights Commission have? (Hint: Look at the members.) Having members in common with the UN does not automatically give it legitimacy. The UN does some good things, and does some things that are to give tinpot third-world dictators a chance to look respectable. The efforts involving the second are fine for trying to nudge countries into being more like the normal world, but should not be given any real authority over anything. The question is, which camp does the ICC fall into? That question tells how much legitimacy it has as a court. (And I don't know the answer, so I'm not going to give one. All I'm saying is "It's like the UN" doesn't make it legitimate, at all.)
- fulafel 6y ago
  The UN RHC has legitimacy, even with its flaws. Political organisations have flaws. Even though not all members are really democratic, the vast majority are. The UN has problems (arguable less so than the US government) but it's the best we have. (Click saver for others, the members: 1. Ms. Tania María Abdo Rocholl Paraguay 2017–2020 2. Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia 2019-2022 3. Ms. Ilze Brands Kehris Latvia 2017–2020 4. Mr. Christopher Arif Bulkan Guyana 2019-2022 5. Mr. Ahmed Amin Fathalla Egypt 2017–2020 6. Mr. Shuichi Furuya Japan 2019–2022 7. Mr. Christof Heyns South Africa 2017–2020 8. Mr. Hernán Quezada Cabrera Chile 2019–2022 9. Mr. Bamariam Koita Mauritania 2017–2020 10. Ms. Marcia. V. J. Kran Canada 2017–2020 11. Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda 2019–2022 12. Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece 2019–2022 13. Ms. Vasilka Sancin Slovenia 2019–2022 14. Mr. José Manuel Santos Pais Portugal 2017–2020 15. Mr. Yuval Shany Israel 2013–2020 16. Ms. Hélène Tigroudja France 2019–2022 17. Mr. Gentian Zyberi Albania 2019–2022 18. Mr. Andreas B. Zimmermann Germany 2018–2020 )
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    That's actually a pretty good list. China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia aren't members any more.

colechristensen 6y ago

To those parties who accepted the treaty, sure. We didn’t. The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours. There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.

boudin 6y ago
World peace? Did you ever looked at all the wars that happened since? Many involving the US army ... And not in a nice way... If you speak of the western world, the main reason for peace is the construction of the european union, creating much more cooperation between countries that had always been fighting each other. US foreign policy is not driven by peace, freedom or whatever propanganda created to have people's support but by self-interest. It's the same for any country.
watwut 6y ago
> the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony Have you had a look at American foreign policy last eight decades? > and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours. Yeah, that sounds totally like what peace and democracy loving entity would say.
fredophile 6y ago
> The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. I'll buy that argument as long as Americans stay inside their own borders. When you choose to enter another country you are subject to their laws whether you agree with them or not. Afghanistan has signed on to the ICC and the activities being investigated took place in Afghanistan. Having said that I don't expect US policy to change on this issue regardless of who wins the next election. Letting US soldiers be tried for war crimes is bad politics.
throw0101a 6y ago
> The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. When a US citizen is in another country, they are under the power of the courts of that other country. Why is this so hard to understand? The US military members, when in Afghanistan, are subject to Afghanistan courts jurisdiction—one of those courts is the ICC because Afghanistan gave the ICC jurisdiction by signing the treaty. When the CIA operatives were in Italy they were under the jurisdiction of the Italian courts and were thus so convicted: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case If you do not want to be under the jurisdiction of non-US courts then do not leave the US. Once you step over the border you have to follow the rules of the other country.

llimos 6y ago

Legally, it is like a private court. From the point of view of someone who is not a member, it's the same thing. Let's take a hypothetical scenario. The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries? 'Legitimacy' is a moral concept. The legal concept that matters is 'jurisdiction'.

drran 6y ago
They may not have the right, but they may have the power. Also, more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies, so majority of states are democracies.
- lazyjones 6y ago
  > more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies, They're not. The current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index lists 22 "full democracies", 64 "flawed democracies" and 24 "hybrid regimes".
  - drran 6y ago
    22+64 = 86 86/167 = 51.5% Majority of countries are democracies.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      86 < 100 less than 100 states are democracies Whether they are a majority or not is irrelevant to what lazyjones said.
      - drran 6y ago
        Hybrid regimes are defined as "Hybrid regimes are nations with regular electoral frauds, preventing them from being fair and free democracies.", so they ARE democracies with regular electoral frauds. 86 + 24 = 110 > 100 More than 100 states are democracies.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

How much legitimacy does the UN Human Rights Commission have? (Hint: Look at the members.) Having members in common with the UN does not automatically give it legitimacy. The UN does some good things, and does some things that are to give tinpot third-world dictators a chance to look respectable. The efforts involving the second are fine for trying to nudge countries into being more like the normal world, but should not be given any real authority over anything. The question is, which camp does the ICC fall into? That question tells how much legitimacy it has as a court. (And I don't know the answer, so I'm not going to give one. All I'm saying is "It's like the UN" doesn't make it legitimate, at all.)

fulafel 6y ago
The UN RHC has legitimacy, even with its flaws. Political organisations have flaws. Even though not all members are really democratic, the vast majority are. The UN has problems (arguable less so than the US government) but it's the best we have. (Click saver for others, the members: 1. Ms. Tania María Abdo Rocholl Paraguay 2017–2020 2. Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia 2019-2022 3. Ms. Ilze Brands Kehris Latvia 2017–2020 4. Mr. Christopher Arif Bulkan Guyana 2019-2022 5. Mr. Ahmed Amin Fathalla Egypt 2017–2020 6. Mr. Shuichi Furuya Japan 2019–2022 7. Mr. Christof Heyns South Africa 2017–2020 8. Mr. Hernán Quezada Cabrera Chile 2019–2022 9. Mr. Bamariam Koita Mauritania 2017–2020 10. Ms. Marcia. V. J. Kran Canada 2017–2020 11. Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda 2019–2022 12. Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece 2019–2022 13. Ms. Vasilka Sancin Slovenia 2019–2022 14. Mr. José Manuel Santos Pais Portugal 2017–2020 15. Mr. Yuval Shany Israel 2013–2020 16. Ms. Hélène Tigroudja France 2019–2022 17. Mr. Gentian Zyberi Albania 2019–2022 18. Mr. Andreas B. Zimmermann Germany 2018–2020 )
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  That's actually a pretty good list. China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia aren't members any more.