6 ms·

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 imp

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 With the so-dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act" I'd say the US has not only withdrawn its signature, it actively threatens anyone trying to hold their citizens accountable to things like war crimes.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.
  - bigbinary 2y ago
    Absolutely true; Gaza’s system of government has collapsed since long ago, and the “democratic” election, that many people use to justify the equivocation of the Gaza population and Hamas, involved less than half the population of the enclave and had numerous other issues that make the Hamas rule a farce. That being said, even those that didn’t vote for Hamas would probably not have elected the PA, as public trust of Palestinians in the PA has eroded due to Mahmoud Abbas’s unwillingness to step down and the perception that the PA is a puppet government. All this to say that Palestinians lack a trustworthy government, much less a government that could be responsible for turning in the Hamas members the ICC wants to arrest.
    - candiodari 2y ago
      If you think like this, then "warcrimes" are bullshit. The whole point of the UN, the Geneva convention, warcrimes legislation, ... is that it would apply 100% in situations where government collapses, in situations where there is nothing but violence, in civil wars (arguably worse than the current situation). That genocide is forbidden AND punished even in the total absense of public trust, in the absense of government, in war, ... So that's the problem I have with the statement: it's true, absolutely, but if we think like this then human rights aren't human rights, but merely subject to governance. Your statement is true, but is a denial of international law. If your statement is true, you may as well abolish the international criminal court. After all, if a government exists, there's no need for them and if a government doesn't exist (or doesn't apply) then, as you say, the rules don't apply. So what's the point? Your statement is true, but the world would be a much better place if your statement was false, and therefore we'll at least pretend it is false. (and, of course, if you think like this, then absolutely anything goes in war)
epolanski 2y ago
Biden has had a vague position on that. The US assisted and supported the ICJ for the charges against Putin for the alleged Ukrainian kids abductions.
- Xelbair 2y ago
  I wonder why US president assisted and supported it on the case that's beneficial to US..
skissane 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. What you are saying here is a bit confused. Under US domestic law, the President has the unilateral authority to sign whatever treaties the President wishes. Ratification comes after signature, the US never ratified the Statute. So there was nothing actually "shaky" about the signature. This is a topic which confuses a lot of people. Agreeing treaties under international law is a two-stage process – the first stage, "signature" is in-principle agreement but isn't actually legally binding (except for a limited obligation "not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty", and it isn't very clear what that even means); "ratification" (sometimes also called "acceptance" or "approval") is fully binding agreement. For less important treaties, the two stages are sometimes collapsed into one ("signature without reservation as to ratification"), but for major treaties the distinction is generally preserved. Also, joining a multilateral treaty subsequent to its entry into force is often a single stage process ("accession"). However, the average person doesn't understand this two-stage process, and is used to everyday contexts where signing a contract is sufficient to make it legally binding. There are some particular reasons why Americans find this even more confusing than people of most countries do. Many Americans have the idea that the US Constitution requires treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate. However, strictly speaking, the President ratifies treaties, not the Senate; the Senate just gives the President permission to do so. Furthermore, US law distinguishes between "treaties" (whose ratification requires two-thirds Senate consent) and "international agreements" (whose ratification doesn't) – but as far as international law is concerned, both are treaties – whether some act of ratification requires consent by the US Senate is an internal American matter with which international law is largely unconcerned. Actually, US law distinguishes three types of "international agreements" (all of which are treaties as far as international law is concerned) – treaties (President ratifies with consent of two-thirds of Senate), congressional-executive agreements (President ratifies with consent of ordinary majority of both House and Senate), and sole executive agreements (President ratifies unilaterally). It is generally understood that "treaties" are used for foundational legal issues, military alliances, borders, human rights, etc; congressional-executive agreements are primarily used for trade; sole executive agreements are used for more minor matters of international cooperation. However, there is no precise legal rule regarding what type of agreement is to be used for which category–the Supreme Court views it as a "political question" which it expects the President and Congress to sort out between themselves, largely without its input. Under international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties article 47), if the President ratifies something, that ratification is still binding under international law on the US, even if US Congress (or even the Supreme Court!) decides the ratification to be illegal or unconstitutional – unless its illegality/unconstitutionality was "manifest" and "objectively evident" to the other states parties at the time the President made it.

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.
- bigbinary 2y ago
  Absolutely true; Gaza’s system of government has collapsed since long ago, and the “democratic” election, that many people use to justify the equivocation of the Gaza population and Hamas, involved less than half the population of the enclave and had numerous other issues that make the Hamas rule a farce. That being said, even those that didn’t vote for Hamas would probably not have elected the PA, as public trust of Palestinians in the PA has eroded due to Mahmoud Abbas’s unwillingness to step down and the perception that the PA is a puppet government. All this to say that Palestinians lack a trustworthy government, much less a government that could be responsible for turning in the Hamas members the ICC wants to arrest.
  - candiodari 2y ago
    If you think like this, then "warcrimes" are bullshit. The whole point of the UN, the Geneva convention, warcrimes legislation, ... is that it would apply 100% in situations where government collapses, in situations where there is nothing but violence, in civil wars (arguably worse than the current situation). That genocide is forbidden AND punished even in the total absense of public trust, in the absense of government, in war, ... So that's the problem I have with the statement: it's true, absolutely, but if we think like this then human rights aren't human rights, but merely subject to governance. Your statement is true, but is a denial of international law. If your statement is true, you may as well abolish the international criminal court. After all, if a government exists, there's no need for them and if a government doesn't exist (or doesn't apply) then, as you say, the rules don't apply. So what's the point? Your statement is true, but the world would be a much better place if your statement was false, and therefore we'll at least pretend it is false. (and, of course, if you think like this, then absolutely anything goes in war)

epolanski 2y ago

Biden has had a vague position on that. The US assisted and supported the ICJ for the charges against Putin for the alleged Ukrainian kids abductions.

Xelbair 2y ago
I wonder why US president assisted and supported it on the case that's beneficial to US..

skissane 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. What you are saying here is a bit confused. Under US domestic law, the President has the unilateral authority to sign whatever treaties the President wishes. Ratification comes after signature, the US never ratified the Statute. So there was nothing actually "shaky" about the signature. This is a topic which confuses a lot of people. Agreeing treaties under international law is a two-stage process – the first stage, "signature" is in-principle agreement but isn't actually legally binding (except for a limited obligation "not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty", and it isn't very clear what that even means); "ratification" (sometimes also called "acceptance" or "approval") is fully binding agreement. For less important treaties, the two stages are sometimes collapsed into one ("signature without reservation as to ratification"), but for major treaties the distinction is generally preserved. Also, joining a multilateral treaty subsequent to its entry into force is often a single stage process ("accession"). However, the average person doesn't understand this two-stage process, and is used to everyday contexts where signing a contract is sufficient to make it legally binding. There are some particular reasons why Americans find this even more confusing than people of most countries do. Many Americans have the idea that the US Constitution requires treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate. However, strictly speaking, the President ratifies treaties, not the Senate; the Senate just gives the President permission to do so. Furthermore, US law distinguishes between "treaties" (whose ratification requires two-thirds Senate consent) and "international agreements" (whose ratification doesn't) – but as far as international law is concerned, both are treaties – whether some act of ratification requires consent by the US Senate is an internal American matter with which international law is largely unconcerned. Actually, US law distinguishes three types of "international agreements" (all of which are treaties as far as international law is concerned) – treaties (President ratifies with consent of two-thirds of Senate), congressional-executive agreements (President ratifies with consent of ordinary majority of both House and Senate), and sole executive agreements (President ratifies unilaterally). It is generally understood that "treaties" are used for foundational legal issues, military alliances, borders, human rights, etc; congressional-executive agreements are primarily used for trade; sole executive agreements are used for more minor matters of international cooperation. However, there is no precise legal rule regarding what type of agreement is to be used for which category–the Supreme Court views it as a "political question" which it expects the President and Congress to sort out between themselves, largely without its input. Under international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties article 47), if the President ratifies something, that ratification is still binding under international law on the US, even if US Congress (or even the Supreme Court!) decides the ratification to be illegal or unconstitutional – unless its illegality/unconstitutionality was "manifest" and "objectively evident" to the other states parties at the time the President made it.