4 ms·

I never said it was a complete list. On the other hand you are not distinguishing countries that have signed but not yet ratified the treaty, leaving only 41 me

I never said it was a complete list. On the other hand you are not distinguishing countries that have signed but not yet ratified the treaty, leaving only 41 members. Of those 41 members feel free to highlight those countries which are shining examples of rule of law and human rights.

leereeves 5y ago
> On the other hand you are not distinguishing countries that have signed but not yet ratified the treaty, leaving only 41 members. The US has also signed but not yet ratified the treaty. We're not one of the 41 who haven't signed. > Of those 41 members feel free to highlight those countries which are shining examples of rule of law and human rights. I couldn't name any countries I would consider "shining examples of rule of law and human rights", ICC member or not. Even the ICC itself has been accused of racism and neo-colonialism because nearly all its prosecutions have targeted Africa. I did notice that Ukraine, like us, signed but didn't ratify the treaty, which I thought was interesting at this time.
- monocasa 5y ago
  At the time of the initial signing off the Rome Statute, Ukraine was a puppet state of Russia. Since then, it has been on track to ratify the statute, recently affirming ICC jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes going as far back as the Euromaiden protests. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/02/ukraine-countries-request-icc-war-crimes-inquiry https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/02/ukraine-countries-reques...
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > I did notice that Ukraine, like us, signed but didn't ratify the treaty, which I thought was interesting at this time. It’s a little more nuanced, Ukraine formally declared acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC following Russia’s initial illegal use of force and armed conflict in Ukraine beginning in 2014. Thereafter Russia withdrew their signature from the Rome Statute in 2016 the day following the ICC report on Crimea classifying Russia’s act as occupation.
refurb 5y ago
You’re playing fuck-fuck games with your arguments and not being honest. I could just as easily turn that argument around and say “why would the US want to sign onto an agreement that include countries like Jordan and Cambodia that have no rule of law”?
- monocasa 5y ago
  Which countries other than the US that don't welcome ICC authority do you think are doing it for noble goals?
  - refurb 5y ago
    A better question is - which countries that did sign the Rome agreement will conveniently back out when one of their own citizens is up for charges that they don't agree with? The ICC is no different than the UN - an international body that is a convenient cover for powerful nations to cloak themselves in. Charges against African despots? Well Europe is on board for that! Charges for war crimes during the Afghan war? Whoa there! We never agreed to that!
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Not really, because my question showed the false dichotomy in how you're trying to frame it. When all other countries we'd consider the closest things to paragons of democracy we have signed it, it paints a pretty clear picture. That picture remains clear even when despotic regimes are about 50/50 on it. Pointing in the direction of a hypothetical doesn't really change that. > Charges against African despots? Well Europe is on board for that! And Europeans as seen from the trials of the war crimes that occurred following the breakup of Yugoslavia. > Charges for war crimes during the Afghan war? Whoa there! We never agreed to that! And yet the ICC has been investigating war crimes during the Afghan war, until the US started sanctioning ICC employees. They have since restarted the investigations. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prosecutor-seeks-resume-icc-probe-afghanistan-80255045 https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prosecutor-se...

leereeves 5y ago

> On the other hand you are not distinguishing countries that have signed but not yet ratified the treaty, leaving only 41 members. The US has also signed but not yet ratified the treaty. We're not one of the 41 who haven't signed. > Of those 41 members feel free to highlight those countries which are shining examples of rule of law and human rights. I couldn't name any countries I would consider "shining examples of rule of law and human rights", ICC member or not. Even the ICC itself has been accused of racism and neo-colonialism because nearly all its prosecutions have targeted Africa. I did notice that Ukraine, like us, signed but didn't ratify the treaty, which I thought was interesting at this time.

monocasa 5y ago
At the time of the initial signing off the Rome Statute, Ukraine was a puppet state of Russia. Since then, it has been on track to ratify the statute, recently affirming ICC jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes going as far back as the Euromaiden protests. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/02/ukraine-countries-request-icc-war-crimes-inquiry https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/02/ukraine-countries-reques...
throwawaycities 5y ago
> I did notice that Ukraine, like us, signed but didn't ratify the treaty, which I thought was interesting at this time. It’s a little more nuanced, Ukraine formally declared acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC following Russia’s initial illegal use of force and armed conflict in Ukraine beginning in 2014. Thereafter Russia withdrew their signature from the Rome Statute in 2016 the day following the ICC report on Crimea classifying Russia’s act as occupation.

refurb 5y ago

You’re playing fuck-fuck games with your arguments and not being honest. I could just as easily turn that argument around and say “why would the US want to sign onto an agreement that include countries like Jordan and Cambodia that have no rule of law”?

monocasa 5y ago
Which countries other than the US that don't welcome ICC authority do you think are doing it for noble goals?
- refurb 5y ago
  A better question is - which countries that did sign the Rome agreement will conveniently back out when one of their own citizens is up for charges that they don't agree with? The ICC is no different than the UN - an international body that is a convenient cover for powerful nations to cloak themselves in. Charges against African despots? Well Europe is on board for that! Charges for war crimes during the Afghan war? Whoa there! We never agreed to that!
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Not really, because my question showed the false dichotomy in how you're trying to frame it. When all other countries we'd consider the closest things to paragons of democracy we have signed it, it paints a pretty clear picture. That picture remains clear even when despotic regimes are about 50/50 on it. Pointing in the direction of a hypothetical doesn't really change that. > Charges against African despots? Well Europe is on board for that! And Europeans as seen from the trials of the war crimes that occurred following the breakup of Yugoslavia. > Charges for war crimes during the Afghan war? Whoa there! We never agreed to that! And yet the ICC has been investigating war crimes during the Afghan war, until the US started sanctioning ICC employees. They have since restarted the investigations. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prosecutor-seeks-resume-icc-probe-afghanistan-80255045 https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prosecutor-se...