4 ms·

Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a “warrant” in the traditional sense, but as sanctions? That is, a court ordered warrant is typically exe

by abtinf 2y ago

Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a “warrant” in the traditional sense, but as sanctions? That is, a court ordered warrant is typically executed by a government’s law enforcement. There is no such proactive enforcement mechanism available to the ICC. Instead, the governments that have ratified the ICC-related treaties have simply agreed to arrest warrant targets if they happen to travel to their jurisdiction. As such, it seems more like a “travel-ban” or “house arrest” than a warrant. Is that correct?

akira2501 2y ago
A warrant is a standing order to arrest someone on sight. A warrant may additionally grant the police extrajudicial powers to enforce the warrant but that's a separate legislative concern. In the case of the ICC the enforcement is left up to individual member states. There may be consequences for not enforcing a warrant when the opportunity presents itself.
duskwuff 2y ago
It's a real arrest warrant when its target is in a country which is a party to the Rome Statute. The ICC has conducted a number of investigations involving war crimes and crimes against humanity in Africa, for example; many of those have led to convictions.
swashboon 2y ago
This is more akin to empaneling a grand-jury in the USA - it is driven by the prosecutors office and is the first step before review to see if adequate evidence exists to justify a "real" warrant that would lead to arrests. If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA, maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house / work / last known address but more often they just wait until you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you.
- reaperman 2y ago
  > If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you. Often goes slightly further than this. The state issuing the warrant must pay “transport fees” to the state doing the arresting. The arresting state calls the warrant state to see if their transport fees will be authorized. Most of the time, those fees are not authorized by the issuing state. So the suspect is let go, if the police interaction wasn’t otherwise justified in an arrest. The reasons for why transport fees are generally declined vary, but I’d imagine that as long as the suspect stays out of the issuing state, they can’t commit more crime in that state, so the outstanding warrant is itself an effective deterrent against crime in the issuing state…the suspect generally will avoid returning. Also jails/prisons are overcrowded, dockets are overflowing, etc. But generally any police interaction which shows a valid warrant in another state, the “local police” will by default attempt an arrest. It’s not “unimportant” to them. Just they can’t do anything with the suspect if they arrest them without approved transport fees so there’s simply no point in completing the arrest. I learned all this just last week by picking up a homeless fugitive hitchiking along the interstate. But he’d had enough interactions with police in various states and seemed otherwise intelligent enough to be a reliable narrator on the matter.
  - pests 2y ago
    In my area (Metro Detroit) it must be flipped. I had a rougher life when I was younger and did pass through the jail system once or twice... The main counties around me go pick you up, not relying on the arresting jurisdiction to transport. One county in particular, Macomb, has a bad reputation in that it will drive across the country to pick you up. Traveling pick up buses criss cross the country. The bad part was the sometimes multi-week long trip spent in handcuffs sleeping in shitty hotels eating cheap McDonald's for every meal.
    - reaperman 2y ago
      This fellow caught his charge in Las Vegas. Thanks for sharing your story from Macomb! Very familiar with the area.
KaiserPro 2y ago
It's my understanding that it also has knock on effects to countries hosting those people, or refusing to arrest them, as it means that weapons shouldn't be exported to the hosting country. However I can't find a reference to that.
whimsicalism 2y ago
> Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a “warrant” in the traditional sense, but as sanctions? I think it is best to think of it as a warrant because it is a standing order for any member state to arrest them. Whether those member states actually do so is not certain, South Africa for instance has shirked recent ICC arrest warrants multiple times.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 2y ago
I don't think it makes sense to look at it this way. I would look at it as any other warrant issued by any body. If the target of the warrant lives in a country that recognizes ICC warrants, then it's more or less similar to a warrant issued by that country's government. If not, then it's similar to a country issuing a warrant for the arrest of someone who lives outside their jurisdiction, with no extradition treaties in place. I do agree that the end result is a sort of "travel ban", but that's no different than if the US issued a warrant for (say) a Chinese citizen living in China. The Chinese government is probably not going to hand that person over, and that person is effectively barred from travel to the US (and likely other countries like Canada that might help the US enforce that warrant if the opportunity presented itself), unless they want to get arrested.
- NoobSaibot135 2y ago
  That actually happened Meng Wanzhou (daughter of the founder of Huawei) bypassed sanctions against Iran Vancouver airport arrested and put her under house arrest for a few years
RachelF 2y ago
ICC signatory countries are meant to arrest anyone on the ICC warrant. South Africa did not with a Sudanese war criminal: "As a signatory to the Rome Statute that governs the jurisdiction and functioning of the Court, South Africa was obliged to arrest al-Bashir when he was in the country, and to extradite him to The Hague to face trial."[1] Last year, Putin cancelled a visit to South Africa as there's an ICC arrest warrant out for him. [1] https://theconversation.com/icc-ruling-on-south-africa-and-al-bashir-pragmatism-wins-the-day-81500 https://theconversation.com/icc-ruling-on-south-africa-and-a...
megous 2y ago
Nobody prevents Netanyahu from traveling to The Hague. It's not a travel ban. I'd welcome if he came. :)

by abtinf 2y ago

akira2501 2y ago

A warrant is a standing order to arrest someone on sight. A warrant may additionally grant the police extrajudicial powers to enforce the warrant but that's a separate legislative concern. In the case of the ICC the enforcement is left up to individual member states. There may be consequences for not enforcing a warrant when the opportunity presents itself.

duskwuff 2y ago

It's a real arrest warrant when its target is in a country which is a party to the Rome Statute. The ICC has conducted a number of investigations involving war crimes and crimes against humanity in Africa, for example; many of those have led to convictions.

swashboon 2y ago

This is more akin to empaneling a grand-jury in the USA - it is driven by the prosecutors office and is the first step before review to see if adequate evidence exists to justify a "real" warrant that would lead to arrests. If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA, maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house / work / last known address but more often they just wait until you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you.

reaperman 2y ago
> If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you. Often goes slightly further than this. The state issuing the warrant must pay “transport fees” to the state doing the arresting. The arresting state calls the warrant state to see if their transport fees will be authorized. Most of the time, those fees are not authorized by the issuing state. So the suspect is let go, if the police interaction wasn’t otherwise justified in an arrest. The reasons for why transport fees are generally declined vary, but I’d imagine that as long as the suspect stays out of the issuing state, they can’t commit more crime in that state, so the outstanding warrant is itself an effective deterrent against crime in the issuing state…the suspect generally will avoid returning. Also jails/prisons are overcrowded, dockets are overflowing, etc. But generally any police interaction which shows a valid warrant in another state, the “local police” will by default attempt an arrest. It’s not “unimportant” to them. Just they can’t do anything with the suspect if they arrest them without approved transport fees so there’s simply no point in completing the arrest. I learned all this just last week by picking up a homeless fugitive hitchiking along the interstate. But he’d had enough interactions with police in various states and seemed otherwise intelligent enough to be a reliable narrator on the matter.
- pests 2y ago
  In my area (Metro Detroit) it must be flipped. I had a rougher life when I was younger and did pass through the jail system once or twice... The main counties around me go pick you up, not relying on the arresting jurisdiction to transport. One county in particular, Macomb, has a bad reputation in that it will drive across the country to pick you up. Traveling pick up buses criss cross the country. The bad part was the sometimes multi-week long trip spent in handcuffs sleeping in shitty hotels eating cheap McDonald's for every meal.
  - reaperman 2y ago
    This fellow caught his charge in Las Vegas. Thanks for sharing your story from Macomb! Very familiar with the area.

KaiserPro 2y ago

It's my understanding that it also has knock on effects to countries hosting those people, or refusing to arrest them, as it means that weapons shouldn't be exported to the hosting country. However I can't find a reference to that.

whimsicalism 2y ago

> Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a “warrant” in the traditional sense, but as sanctions? I think it is best to think of it as a warrant because it is a standing order for any member state to arrest them. Whether those member states actually do so is not certain, South Africa for instance has shirked recent ICC arrest warrants multiple times.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 2y ago

I don't think it makes sense to look at it this way. I would look at it as any other warrant issued by any body. If the target of the warrant lives in a country that recognizes ICC warrants, then it's more or less similar to a warrant issued by that country's government. If not, then it's similar to a country issuing a warrant for the arrest of someone who lives outside their jurisdiction, with no extradition treaties in place. I do agree that the end result is a sort of "travel ban", but that's no different than if the US issued a warrant for (say) a Chinese citizen living in China. The Chinese government is probably not going to hand that person over, and that person is effectively barred from travel to the US (and likely other countries like Canada that might help the US enforce that warrant if the opportunity presented itself), unless they want to get arrested.

NoobSaibot135 2y ago
That actually happened Meng Wanzhou (daughter of the founder of Huawei) bypassed sanctions against Iran Vancouver airport arrested and put her under house arrest for a few years

RachelF 2y ago

ICC signatory countries are meant to arrest anyone on the ICC warrant. South Africa did not with a Sudanese war criminal: "As a signatory to the Rome Statute that governs the jurisdiction and functioning of the Court, South Africa was obliged to arrest al-Bashir when he was in the country, and to extradite him to The Hague to face trial."[1] Last year, Putin cancelled a visit to South Africa as there's an ICC arrest warrant out for him. [1] https://theconversation.com/icc-ruling-on-south-africa-and-al-bashir-pragmatism-wins-the-day-81500 https://theconversation.com/icc-ruling-on-south-africa-and-a...

megous 2y ago

Nobody prevents Netanyahu from traveling to The Hague. It's not a travel ban. I'd welcome if he came. :)