5 ms·

> The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. It is supported (i.e. signed an

> The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. It is supported (i.e. signed and ratified) by all industrialized countries except the US. 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...

AmericanChopper 5y ago
This is just demonstrably untrue. Most Asian countries are either non-signatories, or have withdrawn. China, Russia, Israel, KSA, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Qatar, Turkey… are all post-industrial nations. Also, of the fully ratified signatories, it’s only supported when politically convenient. No member of NATO is going to allow for their citizens to be prosecuted by some extraterritorial court that thinks it has jurisdiction over half the world. Every NATO country has been accused of war crimes, and they’ve probably all committed them. None of them have been prosecuted, allies won’t call on other allies to be prosecuted, even Angela Merkel defends Israel’s on this topic, and Israel barely even pretends that they don’t commit war crimes. It’s also why there’s so much popular anti-ICC sentiment in Africa, because a lot of people there think it only exists to prosecute Africans (which isn’t a very easy accusation to rebut).
- bildung 5y ago
  None of those countries you listed[1] is regarded as a industrialized/developed/first world country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial%20nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial%20nation [1] Except Israel, which essentially never differs from the US in UN voting behaviour.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    First World and Industrialization are very different concepts. First world just means allied with the US during the Cold War. Israel meets every definition of a highly developed country, which makes your first claim false. The wikipedia article you listed also includes Singapore (another non-signatory), which makes this claim false. According to the IMF, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao are all “advanced economies”. All of them are certainly industrialized, and certainly not signatories. All “Newly Industrialized Countries” would also meet the criteria of being “industrialized” as well, and they include (among others) China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines and Turkey. All industrialized, and all non-signatories. Really the only countries in the world that could be considered non-industrialized are the ones classified as Least Developed.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > It’s also why there’s so much popular anti-ICC sentiment in Africa, because a lot of people there think it only exists to prosecute Africans (which isn’t a very easy accusation to rebut) It is, there have been plenty of Serbs that have been convicted.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    Consistent with my comment that the ICC only prosecutes Nazis, Serbs, and random Africans.
Manuel_D 5y ago
It looks like it's not ratified by plenty of industrialized countries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg
- chmod775 5y ago
  Let's count them: Monaco, Israel, Singapore, United States of America, also Hong Kong, Macau, Vatican City if you want to count those. Everyone else in red or orange on that map is not considered an industrialized/developed country. 4-7 is plenty now? Especially considering the size and situation of the others?
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    And Russia, China, Turkey, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan, and more. Maybe your characterization was correct in 1950, but I have serious doubts if your criteria for "industrialized" fails to include the largest industrial producers by a large margin (China).
    - chmod775 5y ago
      You consider countries in which the majority of households lack running water, electricity is available 20 hours a day if you're lucky, or where more than 20-50% of the population work in agriculture (typical for industrialized countries is 1-3%) to be developed? Clearly they have no major infrastructure left to build and their industrialization is done. Nothing to develop left at all.

AmericanChopper 5y ago

This is just demonstrably untrue. Most Asian countries are either non-signatories, or have withdrawn. China, Russia, Israel, KSA, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Qatar, Turkey… are all post-industrial nations. Also, of the fully ratified signatories, it’s only supported when politically convenient. No member of NATO is going to allow for their citizens to be prosecuted by some extraterritorial court that thinks it has jurisdiction over half the world. Every NATO country has been accused of war crimes, and they’ve probably all committed them. None of them have been prosecuted, allies won’t call on other allies to be prosecuted, even Angela Merkel defends Israel’s on this topic, and Israel barely even pretends that they don’t commit war crimes. It’s also why there’s so much popular anti-ICC sentiment in Africa, because a lot of people there think it only exists to prosecute Africans (which isn’t a very easy accusation to rebut).

bildung 5y ago
None of those countries you listed[1] is regarded as a industrialized/developed/first world country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial%20nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial%20nation [1] Except Israel, which essentially never differs from the US in UN voting behaviour.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  First World and Industrialization are very different concepts. First world just means allied with the US during the Cold War. Israel meets every definition of a highly developed country, which makes your first claim false. The wikipedia article you listed also includes Singapore (another non-signatory), which makes this claim false. According to the IMF, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao are all “advanced economies”. All of them are certainly industrialized, and certainly not signatories. All “Newly Industrialized Countries” would also meet the criteria of being “industrialized” as well, and they include (among others) China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines and Turkey. All industrialized, and all non-signatories. Really the only countries in the world that could be considered non-industrialized are the ones classified as Least Developed.
sofixa 5y ago
> It’s also why there’s so much popular anti-ICC sentiment in Africa, because a lot of people there think it only exists to prosecute Africans (which isn’t a very easy accusation to rebut) It is, there have been plenty of Serbs that have been convicted.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  Consistent with my comment that the ICC only prosecutes Nazis, Serbs, and random Africans.

Manuel_D 5y ago

It looks like it's not ratified by plenty of industrialized countries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg

chmod775 5y ago
Let's count them: Monaco, Israel, Singapore, United States of America, also Hong Kong, Macau, Vatican City if you want to count those. Everyone else in red or orange on that map is not considered an industrialized/developed country. 4-7 is plenty now? Especially considering the size and situation of the others?
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  And Russia, China, Turkey, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan, and more. Maybe your characterization was correct in 1950, but I have serious doubts if your criteria for "industrialized" fails to include the largest industrial producers by a large margin (China).
  - chmod775 5y ago
    You consider countries in which the majority of households lack running water, electricity is available 20 hours a day if you're lucky, or where more than 20-50% of the population work in agriculture (typical for industrialized countries is 1-3%) to be developed? Clearly they have no major infrastructure left to build and their industrialization is done. Nothing to develop left at all.