5 ms·

Parties and signatories of the Rome Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/media/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://en.wikipedia.o

Parties and signatories of the Rome Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/media/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/...

octopoc 2y ago
Interestingly looks like both the US and Israel withdrew their signatures at some prior point.
- sirbutters 2y ago
  Certainly wouldn't want US or IDF soldiers to be held accountable. smh.
  - hirsin 2y ago
    I don't think the US govt gives a hoot for the common soldier except where their warrant would provide precedence for a senator or president to also be arrested.
    - NomDePlum 2y ago
      It's politically embarrassing as attempted prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland have shown. It all gets swept under the carpet, on a pretence it's not good for national security. If you prosecute successfully an individual there is a reasonable chance all military personnel involved could be successfully prosecuted is perhaps another reason it won't happen. Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken. Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers? Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.
  - edanm 2y ago
    It's not about being held accountable at all - it's about who is holding them accountable. The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.
    - bigbacaloa 2y ago
      A more undemocratic, anti human rights perspective is hard to imagine. Only I can hold myself accountable is the essence of authoritarian thinking.
    - justinclift 2y ago
      > they can hold their own people accountable Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.
      - edanm 2y ago
        > Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures. It is a principle of democracy that senior government figures can be held accountable. E.g. in the US, Trump, a former president and a potential future president, is currently in several trials. E.g. in Israel, where Netanyahu is under trial in several cases (unrelated to the ICJ) and where e.g. a former PM was convicted of several charges and served time in prison.
        wffurr 2y ago
        Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush have yet to be held accountable for their war crimes after a conviction by the ICC. Obama deserves an investigation and trial at the ICC for much the same reasons, but was somehow seen as better by the ICC and signing countries. All of your examples are domestic crimes.
        gengwyn 2y ago
        I could be missing something but I don’t think any of those three have ever been convicted by the ICC. The examples are domestic crimes because the argument is that the US doesn’t need to be party to the Rome Statute because it would enforce similar penalties on servicemen and leaders using domestic jurisdiction. Others countered that the US somehow can’t do that despite the former president literally being on trial as we speak and the above commenter provided examples to the contrary.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    The US is still actively pursuing one of the well known people (Assange) who dared publishing evidence, further destroying their own reputation. :(
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  The US signature was shaky to begin with (it was never really ratified through the proper channels) and I doubt they would've kept their signatures with the impending invasions following 9/11. With the so-dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act" I'd say the US has not only withdrawn its signature, it actively threatens anyone trying to hold their citizens accountable to things like war crimes. Officially, they're an observer these days, but practically, I think they're only there to see their enemies get convicted, and nothing else.
  - candiodari 2y ago
    Whereas Palestine's signature is fake. I don't know how else to call it. I mean are we now to believe the "state of Palestine" is going to arrest and deliver Sinwar, Deif AND deliver the hostages to Israel just because this guy asks? And they didn't waste any time in stating they would never actually execute the signed treaty. At least we already know that: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmllykpwgdyo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmllykpwgdyo (Yes, I know what the BBC title says, Hamas statement that they won't follow the treaties they agreed to uphold is there, for their own people. In THE SAME STATEMENT they complain that it isn't applied faster to their opponents) (Also: obvious conclusion, if Hamas has no intention of holding up treaties they signed, then that makes any peace with them worthless, even if it's a signed treaty. Without a trusted counterparty there is no choice)
    - moomin 2y ago
      I think you need to make a distinction here between the Palestinian Authority (which signed it) and Hamas (that supplanted it through violent uprising). The PA still exists and would happily comply, they just don’t have a presence in Gaza.
      - candiodari 2y ago
        So? Hamas agreed to abide by international treaties signed by Palestine. AND they "demand" it is held up against Israel. Plus the basic point stands. With people who think like this, treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on.
- bawolff 2y ago
  In fairness, Israel did have a point that the original judge selection process was unfair to them. Realistically though that is probably not the main reason they didn't sign it and that issue has since been rectified.

octopoc 2y ago

Interestingly looks like both the US and Israel withdrew their signatures at some prior point.

sirbutters 2y ago
Certainly wouldn't want US or IDF soldiers to be held accountable. smh.
- hirsin 2y ago
  I don't think the US govt gives a hoot for the common soldier except where their warrant would provide precedence for a senator or president to also be arrested.
  - NomDePlum 2y ago
    It's politically embarrassing as attempted prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland have shown. It all gets swept under the carpet, on a pretence it's not good for national security. If you prosecute successfully an individual there is a reasonable chance all military personnel involved could be successfully prosecuted is perhaps another reason it won't happen. Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken. Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers? Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.
- edanm 2y ago
  It's not about being held accountable at all - it's about who is holding them accountable. The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.
  - bigbacaloa 2y ago
    A more undemocratic, anti human rights perspective is hard to imagine. Only I can hold myself accountable is the essence of authoritarian thinking.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    > they can hold their own people accountable Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.
    - edanm 2y ago
      > Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures. It is a principle of democracy that senior government figures can be held accountable. E.g. in the US, Trump, a former president and a potential future president, is currently in several trials. E.g. in Israel, where Netanyahu is under trial in several cases (unrelated to the ICJ) and where e.g. a former PM was convicted of several charges and served time in prison.
      - wffurr 2y ago
        Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush have yet to be held accountable for their war crimes after a conviction by the ICC. Obama deserves an investigation and trial at the ICC for much the same reasons, but was somehow seen as better by the ICC and signing countries. All of your examples are domestic crimes.
        gengwyn 2y ago
        I could be missing something but I don’t think any of those three have ever been convicted by the ICC. The examples are domestic crimes because the argument is that the US doesn’t need to be party to the Rome Statute because it would enforce similar penalties on servicemen and leaders using domestic jurisdiction. Others countered that the US somehow can’t do that despite the former president literally being on trial as we speak and the above commenter provided examples to the contrary.
- justinclift 2y ago
  The US is still actively pursuing one of the well known people (Assange) who dared publishing evidence, further destroying their own reputation. :(
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jeroenhd 2y ago
The US signature was shaky to begin with (it was never really ratified through the proper channels) and I doubt they would've kept their signatures with the impending invasions following 9/11. With the so-dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act" I'd say the US has not only withdrawn its signature, it actively threatens anyone trying to hold their citizens accountable to things like war crimes. Officially, they're an observer these days, but practically, I think they're only there to see their enemies get convicted, and nothing else.
- candiodari 2y ago
  Whereas Palestine's signature is fake. I don't know how else to call it. I mean are we now to believe the "state of Palestine" is going to arrest and deliver Sinwar, Deif AND deliver the hostages to Israel just because this guy asks? And they didn't waste any time in stating they would never actually execute the signed treaty. At least we already know that: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmllykpwgdyo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmllykpwgdyo (Yes, I know what the BBC title says, Hamas statement that they won't follow the treaties they agreed to uphold is there, for their own people. In THE SAME STATEMENT they complain that it isn't applied faster to their opponents) (Also: obvious conclusion, if Hamas has no intention of holding up treaties they signed, then that makes any peace with them worthless, even if it's a signed treaty. Without a trusted counterparty there is no choice)
  - moomin 2y ago
    I think you need to make a distinction here between the Palestinian Authority (which signed it) and Hamas (that supplanted it through violent uprising). The PA still exists and would happily comply, they just don’t have a presence in Gaza.
    - candiodari 2y ago
      So? Hamas agreed to abide by international treaties signed by Palestine. AND they "demand" it is held up against Israel. Plus the basic point stands. With people who think like this, treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on.
bawolff 2y ago
In fairness, Israel did have a point that the original judge selection process was unfair to them. Realistically though that is probably not the main reason they didn't sign it and that issue has since been rectified.