3 ms·

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

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.
    - breppp 1y ago
      It actually does matter If Israel is not occupying that territory then it does not need to, and when there are no troops in the area it is the responsibility of the Palestinian government. Then it becomes really a palestinian problem as they decided to start a war with no food supplies against its food supplier, while actually destroying most of their food sources during the attack
      - bawolff 1y ago
        The geneva convention still requires parties to not unduly hinder aid supplies even if its destined for places not currently under occupation (you are still allowed to inspect it, administer how its delivered, prevent it from being misappropriated, etc. And there is a lot of ambiguity in that part so some its not the most clear cut). Like the rules are different between the occupation and non-occupation cases, but there are still rules related to food in the non-occupation case. Israel (or any other country at war) probably doesn't need to feed the areas it doesn't occupy. However per the geneva convention they are not allowed to prevent others from supplying the food, and they can't actively take actions to intentionally to cause the starvation of civilians. See section II of aditional protocol 1 of the fourth geneva convention https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I#Section_II._Relief_in_Favour_of_the_Civilian_Population https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I#... (article 54 in the other section is also relavent) [Israel is not a signatory to protocol 1 of the fourth geneva convention but parts are considered to be customary and apply to everyone]
        breppp 1y ago
        I agree, however when not occupying, and when Gaza has a border with Egypt, it really comes to the Palestine government deciding to prioritize its troops for food instead of its citizens (also happens with aid by the way), and to furthermore politically navigate it to a situation of food shortage (multiple steps in stupidity which was starting this war) And if starvation ensues (which did not, by the way), then in reality it's the problem of the palestinian government which really worked hard in causing a food shortage Regarding hindering the transfer of aid, even barring Egypt, Israel does not need to allow the transfer of aid if it is diverted or that it is being used to give military advantage to the adversary. This is well documented as the aid is taken over by the Palestinian government, passed to its troops and the rest is sold in exorbitant prices while the proceedings are passed to pay wages to the Palestinian military. All of this without even raising the current issues around the prosecution in the ICC and behavior that might show a conflict of interest, as well as criminal behavior
- bawolff 1y ago
  > Palestine is an ICC signatory; the genocide is happening on Palestine land. ICC has jurisdiction. While the ICC has juridsiction over criminal acts of genocide comitted on the territory of member states, so far they have not accused anyone of comitting genocide in Palestine. Its always possible they might add more charges later, but so far they have only accused Israeli leaders of lesser crimes.
bawolff 1y ago
> What's legally questionable, is for ICC to claim jurisdiction over Israel - a nation that never signed to or ratified the ICC statue. They do not claim that. What they claim: - palestine is a state (probably the most controversial claim) - states have the right to punish crimes that happen in their borders regardless of who commits them - states can delegate that right to other parties - Palestine delegated that right to the ICC. Additionally from an international law perspective, there is the idea that some things are preemptorary norms which apply to all states. This includes things like parts of the geneva convention or the genocide convention that define certain crimes. Based on the precedent at nuremburg, an international body can setup a tribunal to punish those crimes even against the will of the state in question. The ICC doesnt use this but its fairly well established doctribe in intl law.
- username332211 1y ago
  > Based on the precedent at nuremburg, an international body can setup a tribunal to punish those crimes even against the will of the state in question. You do realize the precedent at Nuremberg (note the spelling), requires that the the capitulation of the party being tried? Famously, at the trial of admiral Dönitz, the defense presented an affidavit from admiral Chester Nimitz, where he confessed to the same crimes Dönitz was being tried for. Dönitz was convicted, but the court declined to try Nimitz because the United States was on the winning side and thus outside of the jurisdiction of the court. You can't impose a tribunal on a country, without capitulation.
  - whatshisface 1y ago
    Hold on, that line of reasoning would imply that the Nazis were primarily guilty of being defeated. Are you sure? The idea of ordering people you can't catch to appear before court makes enough sense to me.

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.
  - breppp 1y ago
    It actually does matter If Israel is not occupying that territory then it does not need to, and when there are no troops in the area it is the responsibility of the Palestinian government. Then it becomes really a palestinian problem as they decided to start a war with no food supplies against its food supplier, while actually destroying most of their food sources during the attack
    - bawolff 1y ago
      The geneva convention still requires parties to not unduly hinder aid supplies even if its destined for places not currently under occupation (you are still allowed to inspect it, administer how its delivered, prevent it from being misappropriated, etc. And there is a lot of ambiguity in that part so some its not the most clear cut). Like the rules are different between the occupation and non-occupation cases, but there are still rules related to food in the non-occupation case. Israel (or any other country at war) probably doesn't need to feed the areas it doesn't occupy. However per the geneva convention they are not allowed to prevent others from supplying the food, and they can't actively take actions to intentionally to cause the starvation of civilians. See section II of aditional protocol 1 of the fourth geneva convention https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I#Section_II._Relief_in_Favour_of_the_Civilian_Population https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I#... (article 54 in the other section is also relavent) [Israel is not a signatory to protocol 1 of the fourth geneva convention but parts are considered to be customary and apply to everyone]
      - breppp 1y ago
        I agree, however when not occupying, and when Gaza has a border with Egypt, it really comes to the Palestine government deciding to prioritize its troops for food instead of its citizens (also happens with aid by the way), and to furthermore politically navigate it to a situation of food shortage (multiple steps in stupidity which was starting this war) And if starvation ensues (which did not, by the way), then in reality it's the problem of the palestinian government which really worked hard in causing a food shortage Regarding hindering the transfer of aid, even barring Egypt, Israel does not need to allow the transfer of aid if it is diverted or that it is being used to give military advantage to the adversary. This is well documented as the aid is taken over by the Palestinian government, passed to its troops and the rest is sold in exorbitant prices while the proceedings are passed to pay wages to the Palestinian military. All of this without even raising the current issues around the prosecution in the ICC and behavior that might show a conflict of interest, as well as criminal behavior
bawolff 1y ago
> Palestine is an ICC signatory; the genocide is happening on Palestine land. ICC has jurisdiction. While the ICC has juridsiction over criminal acts of genocide comitted on the territory of member states, so far they have not accused anyone of comitting genocide in Palestine. Its always possible they might add more charges later, but so far they have only accused Israeli leaders of lesser crimes.

bawolff 1y ago

> What's legally questionable, is for ICC to claim jurisdiction over Israel - a nation that never signed to or ratified the ICC statue. They do not claim that. What they claim: - palestine is a state (probably the most controversial claim) - states have the right to punish crimes that happen in their borders regardless of who commits them - states can delegate that right to other parties - Palestine delegated that right to the ICC. Additionally from an international law perspective, there is the idea that some things are preemptorary norms which apply to all states. This includes things like parts of the geneva convention or the genocide convention that define certain crimes. Based on the precedent at nuremburg, an international body can setup a tribunal to punish those crimes even against the will of the state in question. The ICC doesnt use this but its fairly well established doctribe in intl law.

username332211 1y ago
> Based on the precedent at nuremburg, an international body can setup a tribunal to punish those crimes even against the will of the state in question. You do realize the precedent at Nuremberg (note the spelling), requires that the the capitulation of the party being tried? Famously, at the trial of admiral Dönitz, the defense presented an affidavit from admiral Chester Nimitz, where he confessed to the same crimes Dönitz was being tried for. Dönitz was convicted, but the court declined to try Nimitz because the United States was on the winning side and thus outside of the jurisdiction of the court. You can't impose a tribunal on a country, without capitulation.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  Hold on, that line of reasoning would imply that the Nazis were primarily guilty of being defeated. Are you sure? The idea of ordering people you can't catch to appear before court makes enough sense to me.