6 ms·

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

by 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.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    > Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? Well, that happened. Israel presented an argument that the investigation legally must end, as they haven't consented to ICC jurisdiction; the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory. The US has always taken an extremely aggressive stance that this theory of ICC jurisdiction is unacceptable. "It is a fundamental principle of international law that a treaty is binding upon its parties only and that it does not create obligations for nonparties without their consent to be bound", as 22 USC §7421 puts it. (If you're old enough, you may recognize this as part of the bipartisan "Hague Invasion Act" of 2002, widely understood as a threat of military force against anyone who tries to enforce ICC jurisdiction on a citizen of the US or its non-ICC allies.)
    - bawolff 1y ago
      > the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory. Its a little more complicated than that. The dispute is also about if palestine is a "state" and thus able to consent (and i'm not sure, but possibly what the territorial extent of Palestine is. it probably doesnt matter, but the fact that the official government of Palestine lost control of the gaza strip in a civil war a long time ago is another winkle in this whole thing) While the court initially rejected Israel's challenge, the appeal court reverses the decision, and threw it back to the lower court, which is now deliberating on it https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appeals-chamber-reverses-pre-trial-chambers-decision-israels https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appea... . As far as i understand most observers think this is an extreme long shot on the part of Israel and they are unlikely to win this challenge. [IANAL, and far from an expert at this, this stuff is complicated, it is very possible i got the details wrong]
- sunshowers 1y ago
  What are your object-level beliefs?
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.

by gleenn 1y ago

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.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  > Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? Well, that happened. Israel presented an argument that the investigation legally must end, as they haven't consented to ICC jurisdiction; the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory. The US has always taken an extremely aggressive stance that this theory of ICC jurisdiction is unacceptable. "It is a fundamental principle of international law that a treaty is binding upon its parties only and that it does not create obligations for nonparties without their consent to be bound", as 22 USC §7421 puts it. (If you're old enough, you may recognize this as part of the bipartisan "Hague Invasion Act" of 2002, widely understood as a threat of military force against anyone who tries to enforce ICC jurisdiction on a citizen of the US or its non-ICC allies.)
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory. Its a little more complicated than that. The dispute is also about if palestine is a "state" and thus able to consent (and i'm not sure, but possibly what the territorial extent of Palestine is. it probably doesnt matter, but the fact that the official government of Palestine lost control of the gaza strip in a civil war a long time ago is another winkle in this whole thing) While the court initially rejected Israel's challenge, the appeal court reverses the decision, and threw it back to the lower court, which is now deliberating on it https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appeals-chamber-reverses-pre-trial-chambers-decision-israels https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appea... . As far as i understand most observers think this is an extreme long shot on the part of Israel and they are unlikely to win this challenge. [IANAL, and far from an expert at this, this stuff is complicated, it is very possible i got the details wrong]
sunshowers 1y ago
What are your object-level beliefs?

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.