3 ms·
> And excessively unprincipled stands can get you sent to The Hague to be prosecuted for war crimes. Unless you're from the US, in which case the US will invad
by klibertp 5y ago
> And excessively unprincipled stands can get you sent to The Hague to be prosecuted for war crimes.
Unless you're from the US, in which case the US will invade Netherlands to get you out of there. Apparently, there is a law (from 2002 IIRC) which allows the US to do this legally.
Same goes for Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a lot more countries that did not sign (or ratify) the Rome Statute.
> One of the principles of international law is that a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for third states without their consent, and this is also enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.[149] The co-operation of the non-party states with the ICC is envisioned by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to be of voluntary nature.[150]
For Russia, China, and the US there's literally nothing that can be done: while the "members of UN Security Council" are "compelled to co-operate" with the ICC, these members can veto anything that comes up.
In other words, if you're from one of non-signatories, you can willfully kill, torture, subject to inhumane treatment, perform biological experiments, steal and destroy property, take hostages, unlawfully confine, transfer, and deport, and even willfully cause great suffering without fear of any kind of prosecution.
Does Geneva Convention make a difference? I only learned about ICC and Rome Statute, and it was disheartening enough for me to stop reading, so it's a genuine question.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago>Does Geneva Convention make a difference? Yes I think it does. Whatever the limits of enforcement, it means something that all the countries you mention are signatories to the Geneva Conventions I - IV. Even if these countries refuse to extradite their citizens to The Hague, it doesn't necessarily protect war criminals from prosecution in their own countries. They are still breaking the law.
- the_why_of_y 5y agoSeveral countries have implemented some form of Universal jurisdiction for severe crimes like genocide, meaning their courts may prosecute regardless of nationality of the accused or country where the supposed crime happened. Of course the practical problem is getting hold of the suspected war criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/39791-international-crimes-spotlight-on-france-s-war-crimes-unit.html https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/39791-international-crimes-sp...
- klibertp 5y agoRight, and apparently all signatories to the Convention have an obligation to prosecute people who commit "grave breaches" of the conventions, no matter their nationality and the place the crime took place. So, if a commander from X commits the crime, and the X refuses to prosecute him, he can be legally captured and tried as soon as he visits another signatory country. This is better than just the ICC, definitely (if I understand it correctly).