6 ms·

Just goes to show how short-sighted these political decisions have been. Politics shouldn't be wrapping itself around tech, the US is shrugging off a huge marke

by gleenn 1y ago

Just goes to show how short-sighted these political decisions have been. Politics shouldn't be wrapping itself around tech, the US is shrugging off a huge market and ally.

palmotea 1y ago
> Just goes to show how short-sighted these political decisions have been. Politics shouldn't be wrapping itself around tech, the US is shrugging off a huge market and ally. Which political decision? The one to prosecute a US ally, or the one to sanction the ICC? When someone decries something as "politics," there's often a problem where the analysis conveniently stops when the blame can be placed on the speaker's disfavored group.
- gleenn 1y ago
  Seems like we shouldn't be using tech to punish a foreign group who's job, at least at face value, is to help the world. If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. That's where the battle should be fought. Not ripping away some guy's email access.
  - mlinhares 1y ago
    That would mean having due process.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > Seems like we shouldn't be using tech to punish a foreign group who's job, at least at face value, is to help the world. Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit (see the often-mocked tech company talk about "making the world a better place [by doing awful stuff like shoving targeted ads in people's faces]". > If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. That's where the battle should be fought. Not ripping away some guy's email access. What do you mean? Sanctions are "fight[ing] legally," literally.
    - mananaysiempre 1y ago
      Sanctions are still the rule of the bigger stick, except the stick is measured in money and manufacturing capacity, not soldiers and weapons. A great improvement to be sure, but it’s still an instrument for unilaterally forcing people to stop doing things you don’t like. And as far as a group of people in the Netherlands doing things the US does not like, it’s not clear the US has (or ought to have) a more civilized way to accomplish its goals.
      - palmotea 1y ago
        > Sanctions are still the rule of the bigger stick, except the stick is measured in money and manufacturing capacity, not soldiers and weapons. A great improvement to be sure, but it’s still an instrument for unilaterally forcing people to stop doing things you don’t like. What's the problem with that? Ultimately, that's what all law is. Law doesn't work unless the lawgiver has the power to force its will on whomever it deems to be a lawbreaker. The ICC's problem here is that it tried to exert control where it has no power, inviting retaliation.
        mananaysiempre 1y ago
        > What's the problem with that? Intrinsically, nothing, as long we remember the amoral nature of the whole thing. That what you say is true has nothing to do (in either direction) with its consequences being good in my, your, or anybody else’s conception of goodness; each one of us will have to evaluate that completely independently.
    - repelsteeltje 1y ago
      > Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit It seems you are making the point that using technology to punish subjective politics is the right way?! Sidenote: ICC has been backed by many nations, occasionally including US too. Using sanctions in retributions to unfavourable opinions might seem against the spirit of US Constitution in other contexts... Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? The ICC isn't a bunch of loonies or Saddam's Baath party. These are reasonable people, with dissident opinions, for sure. But reasonable. > Sanctions are "fight[ing] legally," literally. Technically, the more appropriate term might be "legalism", in the mechanistic sense.
  - qznc 1y ago
    In international politics there is no "legally". Maybe the closest thing to it is the ICC.
    - Kudos 1y ago
      Don't international treaties count as "legally"?
      - bee_rider 1y ago
        It isn’t like there are some treaty police that will come along and arrest you for breaking a treaty. It is more like a business contract I think; if you break lots of contracts, people will be less likely to make deals with you.
        qznc 1y ago
        I assume it is more like high school drama just at a much larger scale. If a bully wants your sandwich…
        bawolff 1y ago
        No, but many treaties have dispute mechanisms that function somewhat like a court where you have legal filings. That's how we have the south africa vs israel genocide thing. Both countries signed a treaty that had a clause in it saying the ICJ can decide any disputes about this treaty. More generally, part of the envisioned role of the ICJ is that it could be a court system where countries can go to solve any disputes about how to interpret any treaty (however the rules are both parties have to consent, which means in practise it rarely happens)
    - bawolff 1y ago
      ICJ would be the comparison for international politics. It is all about interpreting treaties and what the duties of various states are in various circumstances. ICC is about criminal liability of individuals, which sometimes has bearing on international politics but is not intrinsically so.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. US isn't really a party to all this, so there isn't much they can do legally (to be clear i think americas sanctions are unacceptable). They could file a juridsictional challenge, which some countries did, but legally there isn't a huge amount of ground to stand on for that. Other than that, the actual legal part doesn't start until (if) the suspects are apprehended. And if it does get to a trial, its going to be the accused lawyers who are going to be fighting it out.
  - username332211 1y ago
    Under international law, the United States is free to regulate it's commerce in any way they wish. If they declare it a crime to do business with the ICC, it's their right. The sanctions are completely legal. What's legally questionable, is for ICC to claim jurisdiction over Israel - a nation that never signed to or ratified the ICC statue.
    - Nekhrimah 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - username332211 1y ago
        That's a rather questionable interpretation of international law, I'm afraid. If a country A wages war on country B, A isn't normally bound by treaties signed by B. And in any case, even if the ICC's actions weren't questionable, the beauty of international law is that America is free to ban companies from serving the ICC for any reason or for no reason at all.
      - breppp 1y ago
        Claiming Palestine is a state in its current form is a huge stretch and would probably undermine the rest of the court case. Is Israel actually supposed to supply food for the independent state of Palestine whose controlling government in Gaza (Hamas) has initiated said war, while the war is ongoing, and where the food is transferred to areas that are not even controlled by Israeli forces? I don't think that's very common in warfare between states
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        bawolff 1y ago
        > Is Israel actually supposed to supply food for the independent state of Palestine whose controlling government in Gaza (Hamas) has initiated said war, while the war is ongoing, and where the food is transferred to areas that are not even controlled by Israeli forces? I don't think that's very common in warfare between states Under the geneva convention Israel (or any state engaged in war) is expected to do 2 things: - not unduly hinder aid shipments provided by relief organizations (there are a bunch of details here im glossing over) - anywhere where they are occupying they are expected to ensure that the civilian population has the neccesities of survival. Providing it themselves if neccesary. It doesn't matter who started the war, who is right, who is wrong. The rules are for the protection of non combatants, not for the people involved in the war.
- randunel 1y ago
  Imagine the leader of some random country taking away your country's judge's funds, their email address, their job, for trying to do their job in accordance with the law, regarding a non citizen. You don't have to imagine it, it's happening. Is it happening to judges in your country, though?
  - flyinglizard 1y ago
    That would be bad because it tramples that country’s sovereignty, and by that, the sovereignty of its citizens. But the ICC has no citizens, and it does not represent anyone other than a cause.
    - randunel 1y ago
      The ICC judges are most definitely citizens of the members' countries. The "sanctions" are against the persons, not against the institution.
DannyBee 1y ago
I honestly don't get what HN, or even some commenters, thinks should happen here in the real world. I understand in the pretend world they want to be able to do $x without ever worrying about being beholden to any other countries laws or politics or whatever else. They want this for lots of values of $x, and often have fun asserting it will soon be possible. In the real world however, this has never been possible, since the dawn of recorded history, for lots and lots and lots of values of $x. Pretty much any time $x becomes valuable or interesting enough, it becomes impossible to have this happen in all and usually most cases. It often doesn't matter how simple a thing $x is - sailing a ship for example, or buying produce, it usually only matters how valuable or interesting it was. As long as enough countries exist, and they have laws that have extra-territorial effect, the likelihood this problem will be really solved trends towards zero. What exactly does someone expect to happen here when it's just people and companies trying to follow the laws they think they are required to follow. This is actually what should happen, and is happening The usual response is then that some country or group of countries need to build some untouchable-by-other-countries infrastructure and that will solve having to deal with others politics. This seems to me naive at best. The only cases this will work is for things that can be 100% contained and controlled within a given country/group. That is roughly impossible for most interesting things. For example - it makes no sense to have a economic-block-specific email provider to work around sanctions, because whoever wanted to sanction them will just ban transiting email to them, and then transiting packets, and then equipment, and then chips to make equipment, and then machines to make chips to make equipment, and then wafers used to make chips, and then raw resources used to make wafers, and then equipment to mine raw resources, and then .... Let's assume you don't care about this group, but they are still powerful. Great - they'll do this not just directly, but indirectly, by forcing others who do have to care to do the same to you. Now, it would be different if you are building this thing as a political move or strategy, rather than expecting it to solve your problem directly. But otherwise, it is remarkably rare to be able to work around the politics with technology, and if you do, you won't be able to for very long. It's much more useful to focus on dealing with the politics, if you want to change it. Wasting lots of time and energy and money trying to avoid politics seems like a bad plan
SllX 1y ago
> ally Keep the chocolate separate from the artificial sweeteners. Whatever our deal is with the EU and individual European countries, the ICC is emphatically not an EU nor even a European court. They’re hosted in The Hague, it is not of The Hague in the same way the UN is not of New York.
- j0057 1y ago
  This distinction is a technicality, given the The Hague Invasion Act signed into law by G.W. Bush. Or to use your example, would a hypothetical attack on the UN building in New York not also be a violation of American sovereignty?
  - SllX 1y ago
    Call me when we’ve invaded The Hague or when someone else invades New York. An international institution that claims members from Asia, Africa and across the Americas doesn’t become a European institution just because America left the room. Japan is actually the largest national contributor to the ICC’s budget.
mark336 1y ago
The U.S. is harming itself by making technology subject to politics. Only makes them look untrustworthy. Just Trump breaking things that work.

by gleenn 1y ago

Just goes to show how short-sighted these political decisions have been. Politics shouldn't be wrapping itself around tech, the US is shrugging off a huge market and ally.

palmotea 1y ago

> Just goes to show how short-sighted these political decisions have been. Politics shouldn't be wrapping itself around tech, the US is shrugging off a huge market and ally. Which political decision? The one to prosecute a US ally, or the one to sanction the ICC? When someone decries something as "politics," there's often a problem where the analysis conveniently stops when the blame can be placed on the speaker's disfavored group.

gleenn 1y ago
Seems like we shouldn't be using tech to punish a foreign group who's job, at least at face value, is to help the world. If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. That's where the battle should be fought. Not ripping away some guy's email access.
- mlinhares 1y ago
  That would mean having due process.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > Seems like we shouldn't be using tech to punish a foreign group who's job, at least at face value, is to help the world. Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit (see the often-mocked tech company talk about "making the world a better place [by doing awful stuff like shoving targeted ads in people's faces]". > If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. That's where the battle should be fought. Not ripping away some guy's email access. What do you mean? Sanctions are "fight[ing] legally," literally.
  - mananaysiempre 1y ago
    Sanctions are still the rule of the bigger stick, except the stick is measured in money and manufacturing capacity, not soldiers and weapons. A great improvement to be sure, but it’s still an instrument for unilaterally forcing people to stop doing things you don’t like. And as far as a group of people in the Netherlands doing things the US does not like, it’s not clear the US has (or ought to have) a more civilized way to accomplish its goals.
    - palmotea 1y ago
      > Sanctions are still the rule of the bigger stick, except the stick is measured in money and manufacturing capacity, not soldiers and weapons. A great improvement to be sure, but it’s still an instrument for unilaterally forcing people to stop doing things you don’t like. What's the problem with that? Ultimately, that's what all law is. Law doesn't work unless the lawgiver has the power to force its will on whomever it deems to be a lawbreaker. The ICC's problem here is that it tried to exert control where it has no power, inviting retaliation.
      - mananaysiempre 1y ago
        > What's the problem with that? Intrinsically, nothing, as long we remember the amoral nature of the whole thing. That what you say is true has nothing to do (in either direction) with its consequences being good in my, your, or anybody else’s conception of goodness; each one of us will have to evaluate that completely independently.
  - repelsteeltje 1y ago
    > Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit It seems you are making the point that using technology to punish subjective politics is the right way?! Sidenote: ICC has been backed by many nations, occasionally including US too. Using sanctions in retributions to unfavourable opinions might seem against the spirit of US Constitution in other contexts... Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? The ICC isn't a bunch of loonies or Saddam's Baath party. These are reasonable people, with dissident opinions, for sure. But reasonable. > Sanctions are "fight[ing] legally," literally. Technically, the more appropriate term might be "legalism", in the mechanistic sense.
- qznc 1y ago
  In international politics there is no "legally". Maybe the closest thing to it is the ICC.
  - Kudos 1y ago
    Don't international treaties count as "legally"?
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      It isn’t like there are some treaty police that will come along and arrest you for breaking a treaty. It is more like a business contract I think; if you break lots of contracts, people will be less likely to make deals with you.
      - qznc 1y ago
        I assume it is more like high school drama just at a much larger scale. If a bully wants your sandwich…
      - bawolff 1y ago
        No, but many treaties have dispute mechanisms that function somewhat like a court where you have legal filings. That's how we have the south africa vs israel genocide thing. Both countries signed a treaty that had a clause in it saying the ICJ can decide any disputes about this treaty. More generally, part of the envisioned role of the ICJ is that it could be a court system where countries can go to solve any disputes about how to interpret any treaty (however the rules are both parties have to consent, which means in practise it rarely happens)
  - bawolff 1y ago
    ICJ would be the comparison for international politics. It is all about interpreting treaties and what the duties of various states are in various circumstances. ICC is about criminal liability of individuals, which sometimes has bearing on international politics but is not intrinsically so.
- bawolff 1y ago
  > If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. US isn't really a party to all this, so there isn't much they can do legally (to be clear i think americas sanctions are unacceptable). They could file a juridsictional challenge, which some countries did, but legally there isn't a huge amount of ground to stand on for that. Other than that, the actual legal part doesn't start until (if) the suspects are apprehended. And if it does get to a trial, its going to be the accused lawyers who are going to be fighting it out.
- username332211 1y ago
  Under international law, the United States is free to regulate it's commerce in any way they wish. If they declare it a crime to do business with the ICC, it's their right. The sanctions are completely legal. What's legally questionable, is for ICC to claim jurisdiction over Israel - a nation that never signed to or ratified the ICC statue.
  - Nekhrimah 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - username332211 1y ago
      That's a rather questionable interpretation of international law, I'm afraid. If a country A wages war on country B, A isn't normally bound by treaties signed by B. And in any case, even if the ICC's actions weren't questionable, the beauty of international law is that America is free to ban companies from serving the ICC for any reason or for no reason at all.
    - breppp 1y ago
      Claiming Palestine is a state in its current form is a huge stretch and would probably undermine the rest of the court case. Is Israel actually supposed to supply food for the independent state of Palestine whose controlling government in Gaza (Hamas) has initiated said war, while the war is ongoing, and where the food is transferred to areas that are not even controlled by Israeli forces? I don't think that's very common in warfare between states
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - bawolff 1y ago
        > Is Israel actually supposed to supply food for the independent state of Palestine whose controlling government in Gaza (Hamas) has initiated said war, while the war is ongoing, and where the food is transferred to areas that are not even controlled by Israeli forces? I don't think that's very common in warfare between states Under the geneva convention Israel (or any state engaged in war) is expected to do 2 things: - not unduly hinder aid shipments provided by relief organizations (there are a bunch of details here im glossing over) - anywhere where they are occupying they are expected to ensure that the civilian population has the neccesities of survival. Providing it themselves if neccesary. It doesn't matter who started the war, who is right, who is wrong. The rules are for the protection of non combatants, not for the people involved in the war.
randunel 1y ago
Imagine the leader of some random country taking away your country's judge's funds, their email address, their job, for trying to do their job in accordance with the law, regarding a non citizen. You don't have to imagine it, it's happening. Is it happening to judges in your country, though?
- flyinglizard 1y ago
  That would be bad because it tramples that country’s sovereignty, and by that, the sovereignty of its citizens. But the ICC has no citizens, and it does not represent anyone other than a cause.
  - randunel 1y ago
    The ICC judges are most definitely citizens of the members' countries. The "sanctions" are against the persons, not against the institution.

DannyBee 1y ago

I honestly don't get what HN, or even some commenters, thinks should happen here in the real world. I understand in the pretend world they want to be able to do $x without ever worrying about being beholden to any other countries laws or politics or whatever else. They want this for lots of values of $x, and often have fun asserting it will soon be possible. In the real world however, this has never been possible, since the dawn of recorded history, for lots and lots and lots of values of $x. Pretty much any time $x becomes valuable or interesting enough, it becomes impossible to have this happen in all and usually most cases. It often doesn't matter how simple a thing $x is - sailing a ship for example, or buying produce, it usually only matters how valuable or interesting it was. As long as enough countries exist, and they have laws that have extra-territorial effect, the likelihood this problem will be really solved trends towards zero. What exactly does someone expect to happen here when it's just people and companies trying to follow the laws they think they are required to follow. This is actually what should happen, and is happening The usual response is then that some country or group of countries need to build some untouchable-by-other-countries infrastructure and that will solve having to deal with others politics. This seems to me naive at best. The only cases this will work is for things that can be 100% contained and controlled within a given country/group. That is roughly impossible for most interesting things. For example - it makes no sense to have a economic-block-specific email provider to work around sanctions, because whoever wanted to sanction them will just ban transiting email to them, and then transiting packets, and then equipment, and then chips to make equipment, and then machines to make chips to make equipment, and then wafers used to make chips, and then raw resources used to make wafers, and then equipment to mine raw resources, and then .... Let's assume you don't care about this group, but they are still powerful. Great - they'll do this not just directly, but indirectly, by forcing others who do have to care to do the same to you. Now, it would be different if you are building this thing as a political move or strategy, rather than expecting it to solve your problem directly. But otherwise, it is remarkably rare to be able to work around the politics with technology, and if you do, you won't be able to for very long. It's much more useful to focus on dealing with the politics, if you want to change it. Wasting lots of time and energy and money trying to avoid politics seems like a bad plan

SllX 1y ago

> ally Keep the chocolate separate from the artificial sweeteners. Whatever our deal is with the EU and individual European countries, the ICC is emphatically not an EU nor even a European court. They’re hosted in The Hague, it is not of The Hague in the same way the UN is not of New York.

j0057 1y ago
This distinction is a technicality, given the The Hague Invasion Act signed into law by G.W. Bush. Or to use your example, would a hypothetical attack on the UN building in New York not also be a violation of American sovereignty?
- SllX 1y ago
  Call me when we’ve invaded The Hague or when someone else invades New York. An international institution that claims members from Asia, Africa and across the Americas doesn’t become a European institution just because America left the room. Japan is actually the largest national contributor to the ICC’s budget.

mark336 1y ago

The U.S. is harming itself by making technology subject to politics. Only makes them look untrustworthy. Just Trump breaking things that work.