5 ms·

> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept For what it’s worth, Israel signed the Rome Statute establishing the court in 2000

> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept For what it’s worth, Israel signed the Rome Statute establishing the court in 2000 but declared in 2002 it no longer intends to ratify it[1]. (Which, I guess, is marginally better than the US, which has threatened The Hague with military invasion in case any arrests are made[2]. But not by much.) TFA specifically points out that “States are not entitled to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.” [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute#Signatories_which_have_not_ratified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

mmastrac 2y ago
As a follow-up to [2], even more interesting is the text of covered persons: "military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand"
- buckle8017 2y ago
  That's not the list of covered persons. The act bars military aid to any country that is a signatory to the court, except those countries.
  - mananaysiempre 2y ago
    It’s both, effectively, but the GP is quoting the correct copy of the list. The prohibition you mention is in 22 USC 7426: > (a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...] > (d) EXEMPTION.—The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not apply to the government of— > (1) a NATO member country; > (2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or > (3) Taiwan. The threat I was talking about is in 22 USC 7427: > (a) AUTHORITY.—The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. > (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.—The authority of sub-section (a) shall extend to the following persons: > (1) Covered United States persons. > (2) Covered allied persons. > (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government. > [...] with “covered persons” defined in 22 USC 7432 by essentially the same list as above, as long as those countries do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC: > [...] > (3) COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.—The term “covered allied persons” means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. > (4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS.—The term “covered United States persons” means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...]
    - buckle8017 2y ago
      You'll note that the Covered Allied Persons excludes those countries on the list so long as they are party to the ICC. The military aid prohibition does not.
belter 2y ago
If we are going to discuss the diplomatic and international implications of the ICC, it is important to note that the security—and even the continued existence as independent, sovereign entities—of the countries supporting the court is overwhelmingly reliant on the U.S. military umbrella. Without this protection, their sovereignty would quickly be at risk.
- pepve 2y ago
  I'm not sure you are right. Take a look at this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court . I don't think "overwhelmingly reliant on the US" is an accurate description of the green countries on that map. Partially reliant sure. But not overwhelmingly.
  - belter 2y ago
    No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce the ICC arrest request for Putin. Concerning the rest of Europe, with the exception of the only military power left: France, are you arguing they could defend their sovereignty without the USA military big stick? "Why Europe Is Unprepared to Defend Itself" - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-nato-armed-forces/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-nato-armed-forces/
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce the ICC arrest request for Putin. That's your straight-up speculation. Meanwhile, the fact that he hasn't visited any of those countries -- suggests he knows better.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        It's not entirely speculation; South Africa certainly wanted to avoid it. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/south-africa-asks-icc-to-exempt-it-from-putin-arrest-to-avoid-war-with-russia-idUSKBN2YY1E6/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/south-africa-asks-icc-... > South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has asked permission from the International Criminal Court not to arrest Russia's Vladimir Putin, because to do so would amount to a declaration of war, a local court submission published on Tuesday showed. Brazil waffled, too. https://www.reuters.com/world/up-brazils-judiciary-decide-putin-arrest-if-he-visits-brazil-lula-2023-09-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/up-brazils-judiciary-decide-pu... > On Saturday, while in India for a Group of 20 nations meeting, Lula told a local interviewer that there was "no way" Putin would be arrested if he attended next year's summit, which is due to be held in Rio de Janeiro.

mmastrac 2y ago

As a follow-up to [2], even more interesting is the text of covered persons: "military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand"

buckle8017 2y ago
That's not the list of covered persons. The act bars military aid to any country that is a signatory to the court, except those countries.
- mananaysiempre 2y ago
  It’s both, effectively, but the GP is quoting the correct copy of the list. The prohibition you mention is in 22 USC 7426: > (a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...] > (d) EXEMPTION.—The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not apply to the government of— > (1) a NATO member country; > (2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or > (3) Taiwan. The threat I was talking about is in 22 USC 7427: > (a) AUTHORITY.—The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. > (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.—The authority of sub-section (a) shall extend to the following persons: > (1) Covered United States persons. > (2) Covered allied persons. > (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government. > [...] with “covered persons” defined in 22 USC 7432 by essentially the same list as above, as long as those countries do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC: > [...] > (3) COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.—The term “covered allied persons” means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. > (4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS.—The term “covered United States persons” means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...]
  - buckle8017 2y ago
    You'll note that the Covered Allied Persons excludes those countries on the list so long as they are party to the ICC. The military aid prohibition does not.

belter 2y ago

If we are going to discuss the diplomatic and international implications of the ICC, it is important to note that the security—and even the continued existence as independent, sovereign entities—of the countries supporting the court is overwhelmingly reliant on the U.S. military umbrella. Without this protection, their sovereignty would quickly be at risk.

pepve 2y ago
I'm not sure you are right. Take a look at this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court . I don't think "overwhelmingly reliant on the US" is an accurate description of the green countries on that map. Partially reliant sure. But not overwhelmingly.
- belter 2y ago
  No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce the ICC arrest request for Putin. Concerning the rest of Europe, with the exception of the only military power left: France, are you arguing they could defend their sovereignty without the USA military big stick? "Why Europe Is Unprepared to Defend Itself" - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-nato-armed-forces/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-nato-armed-forces/
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce the ICC arrest request for Putin. That's your straight-up speculation. Meanwhile, the fact that he hasn't visited any of those countries -- suggests he knows better.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      It's not entirely speculation; South Africa certainly wanted to avoid it. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/south-africa-asks-icc-to-exempt-it-from-putin-arrest-to-avoid-war-with-russia-idUSKBN2YY1E6/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/south-africa-asks-icc-... > South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has asked permission from the International Criminal Court not to arrest Russia's Vladimir Putin, because to do so would amount to a declaration of war, a local court submission published on Tuesday showed. Brazil waffled, too. https://www.reuters.com/world/up-brazils-judiciary-decide-putin-arrest-if-he-visits-brazil-lula-2023-09-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/up-brazils-judiciary-decide-pu... > On Saturday, while in India for a Group of 20 nations meeting, Lula told a local interviewer that there was "no way" Putin would be arrested if he attended next year's summit, which is due to be held in Rio de Janeiro.