4 ms·

I am curious from a constitution law point of view, does a ruling in ICC supersede or sets a precedent in state or federal case? For example, if a ICC or US Fed

I am curious from a constitution law point of view, does a ruling in ICC supersede or sets a precedent in state or federal case? For example, if a ICC or US Federal Court rules synthetic art generated by LLM or Diffusion Models are not copyright able or code is speech protected by bill of rights does it mean ICC can interpret from that in a broad/narrow scope or vice versa as they do in our judicial system?

navtoj 3y ago
The Rome Statute limits the "Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court". Copyright infringement is not included. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court#article-5 https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
dotnet00 3y ago
The US does not recognize the ICC, so its courts probably wouldn't really care about any precedents set by the ICC. Likely the same the other way around.
squiffsquiff 3y ago
Not sure why you're talking about US law here. USA doesn't even recognise ICC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
benvolio 3y ago
I would guess that it would be unlikely for any ICC case to have significant standing in any American courthouse. The US is no longer a signatory to the Rome Statute which was the treaty which established the ICC and I don’t believe there is any interest in being bound to their rulings.
wolverine876 3y ago
As others have said, the US doesn't even recognize the ICC. If it did, the ICC is not a higher court - it's not in a judicial hierarchy. It's an independent agency created to prosecute war crimes and similar behavior. (The following is my impressions; hopefully someone knows the specifics.) If a dictatorial government leader commits war crimes, who prosecutes them and under what law? Unless they lose the war, the victims can't prosecute. Unless they lose power, their own country won't (and even if they do, they often walk away free). Third party countries have little motive or standing - there was no crime commited in their jurisdiction (though universal jurisdiction now addresses that to some degree). The tyrants could commit horrors with impunity. The ICC presents some real deterrence: Maybe you can get away with the war crimes today, but someone is watching and may arrest and prosecute you later. Maybe it's better to fight the war sufficiently adhering to international law on warfare (e.g., the Geneva Conventions), and avoid that risk.

navtoj 3y ago

The Rome Statute limits the "Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court". Copyright infringement is not included. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court#article-5 https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

dotnet00 3y ago

The US does not recognize the ICC, so its courts probably wouldn't really care about any precedents set by the ICC. Likely the same the other way around.

squiffsquiff 3y ago

Not sure why you're talking about US law here. USA doesn't even recognise ICC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

benvolio 3y ago

I would guess that it would be unlikely for any ICC case to have significant standing in any American courthouse. The US is no longer a signatory to the Rome Statute which was the treaty which established the ICC and I don’t believe there is any interest in being bound to their rulings.

wolverine876 3y ago

As others have said, the US doesn't even recognize the ICC. If it did, the ICC is not a higher court - it's not in a judicial hierarchy. It's an independent agency created to prosecute war crimes and similar behavior. (The following is my impressions; hopefully someone knows the specifics.) If a dictatorial government leader commits war crimes, who prosecutes them and under what law? Unless they lose the war, the victims can't prosecute. Unless they lose power, their own country won't (and even if they do, they often walk away free). Third party countries have little motive or standing - there was no crime commited in their jurisdiction (though universal jurisdiction now addresses that to some degree). The tyrants could commit horrors with impunity. The ICC presents some real deterrence: Maybe you can get away with the war crimes today, but someone is watching and may arrest and prosecute you later. Maybe it's better to fight the war sufficiently adhering to international law on warfare (e.g., the Geneva Conventions), and avoid that risk.