4 ms·

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 majori

by 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.
- kenneth 6y ago
  Democracies like… for example Belarus? I can't think of a single real democracy that isn't deeply flawed except for Switzerland.
  - squiggleblaz 6y ago
    What is so special about Switzerland then? How is it so much better than say NZ?
    - kenneth 6y ago
      It's the only direct democracy in the world, where the people really vote on issues instead of on representatives. For example, we don't really have a president. Laws written by parliament are put to quarterly nation-wide ballots. I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians who have positions that they later compromise on.
      - squiggleblaz 6y ago
        > For example, we don't really have a president. This actually nothing to do with being a direct democracy. You still have an executive cabinet selected by (but not responsible to) parliament. It's just that every member of the executive is selected by the parliament, instead of the parliament selecting a leader who picks the rest. > I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians You can still get tricked by politicians. America has very many citizens-initiated referenda, but it cannot be said to have improved their democratic outcomes.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > Democracies like… for example Belarus? Nope: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index By this measure there are "better" systems than the Swiss are running. > I can't think of a single real democracy that isn't deeply flawed except for Switzerland. IMHO: * https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
throw0101a 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. The US is not part of the Italian legal system, and yet when CIA officials were in Italy, and committed crimes in Italy, and were convicted by an Italian court for those crimes in absentia, is anyone questioning that? * https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case The crimes were committed in a country that gave jurisdiction to the court. > 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? If the prosecuted countries/people committed crimes in the jurisdictions of those non-democracies, yes it would have the right. The crimes were allegedly occurred in Afghanistan, and the ICC has jurisdiction in Afghanistan because Afghanistan gave it. > The ICC lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court If the alleged crimes happened in Somalia, which is a non-member / non-signatory (AFAICT), then the ICC would have no jurisdiction. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...

by llimos 6y ago

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.
kenneth 6y ago
Democracies like… for example Belarus? I can't think of a single real democracy that isn't deeply flawed except for Switzerland.
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  What is so special about Switzerland then? How is it so much better than say NZ?
  - kenneth 6y ago
    It's the only direct democracy in the world, where the people really vote on issues instead of on representatives. For example, we don't really have a president. Laws written by parliament are put to quarterly nation-wide ballots. I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians who have positions that they later compromise on.
    - squiggleblaz 6y ago
      > For example, we don't really have a president. This actually nothing to do with being a direct democracy. You still have an executive cabinet selected by (but not responsible to) parliament. It's just that every member of the executive is selected by the parliament, instead of the parliament selecting a leader who picks the rest. > I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians You can still get tricked by politicians. America has very many citizens-initiated referenda, but it cannot be said to have improved their democratic outcomes.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > Democracies like… for example Belarus? Nope: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index By this measure there are "better" systems than the Swiss are running. > I can't think of a single real democracy that isn't deeply flawed except for Switzerland. IMHO: * https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

throw0101a 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. The US is not part of the Italian legal system, and yet when CIA officials were in Italy, and committed crimes in Italy, and were convicted by an Italian court for those crimes in absentia, is anyone questioning that? * https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case The crimes were committed in a country that gave jurisdiction to the court. > 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? If the prosecuted countries/people committed crimes in the jurisdictions of those non-democracies, yes it would have the right. The crimes were allegedly occurred in Afghanistan, and the ICC has jurisdiction in Afghanistan because Afghanistan gave it. > The ICC lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court If the alleged crimes happened in Somalia, which is a non-member / non-signatory (AFAICT), then the ICC would have no jurisdiction. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...