7 ms·

To be fair, the ICC isn’t a European court, at least on paper.

by SllX 1y ago

rolandog 1y ago
It doesn't matter if it is or isn't. The whole point was accountability to each other. That went out the window with the "American Service-Members' Protection Act" (The Hague Invasion Act) [0]. Nothing screams "complicit in genocide" like attacking and cripling the institution investigating such crimes. I'm surprised there hasn't been more public outrage at what I think is the geopolitical equivalent of having a journalist killed. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- SllX 1y ago
  It does matter, even excluding America, Russia and the PRC, none of which are signatories, as well as the other non-members: the world is a big place. The ICC has many signatories across the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. An international institution doesn’t automatically become a European one when America leaves the room. > Nothing screams "complicit in genocide" like attacking and cripling the institution investigating such crimes. The law you cited is clear. Don’t touch American service members and American service members won’t touch the court. Reasonable enough given we aren’t party to the court and will not be held subject to its jurisdiction.
  - megous 1y ago
    Yeah, clear law: "(b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons: (2) Covered allied persons." That includes Nehterlands, which is a member of NATO. So US can snatch Dutch war criminal from Netherlands if US president likes the person or whatever? :) Very clear law with no weird implications. Addenum: I solely react to your claim that this law is very clear.
    - SllX 1y ago
      I would actually pay money to see that happen, should the opportunity arise. Jokes aside though, remember that the prior commentator brought in the American Service-Members Protection Act as a weird form of whataboutism. Bringing that up does not transform the ICC into a European court, even if an actual American military intervention of The Hague would not bode well for the integrity of Dutch sovereignty and my advise to the European nations and citizenry that can’t grok the implications of hosting an international political institution is to convince the ICC to relocate itself so the Eurocentric among you stop mistaking it for a European court.
    - mananaysiempre 1y ago
      > [Covered allied persons] includes Nehterlands, which is a member of NATO. Because the Netherlands signed the Rome Statute, it does not (italics mine): > 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.
      - megous 1y ago
        Exceptions for everything. :-)
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > The law you cited is clear. Don’t touch American service members and American service members won’t touch the court. Reasonable enough given we aren’t party to the court and will not be held subject to its jurisdiction. Not really. International law is for the most part not worth the paper its written on. However if you do believe in it, USA signed the UN charter where they in theory gave up the right to use military force except in self-defence. A foreign court holding a trial for an american citizen accused of commiting a crime in a foreign place is definitely not a valid excuse to invade someone under international law. Its also pretty hypocritical, since if someone travels to america and commits a crime there, america has no problem arresting them for their conduct while in america. Why aren't other countries allowed to do the same?
    - SllX 1y ago
      > A foreign court holding a trial for an american citizen accused of commiting a crime in a foreign place is definitely not a valid excuse to invade someone under international law. This isn’t a Dutch district court in The Hague trying ordinary crimes. This is a non-Dutch court hosted in The Hague with jurisdiction limited to signatory nations and trying extraordinary crimes listed in its charter, but again, with limited jurisdiction. Right now the extent and scope of their reach is under debate specifically between the signatory Palestinian State and the non-signatory Israel, and we’re seeing that “debate” play out between governments which have an interest in minimizing its institutional reach and the ICC itself which has an interest in maximizing its institutional reach. Real sovereign nations are, as it turns out, more powerful than the ICC. Which brings us to: > Its also pretty hypocritical, since if someone travels to america and commits a crime there, america has no problem arresting them for their conduct while in america. Why aren't other countries allowed to do the same? Other countries can and they do, and we do the same to foreigners that commit crimes in America. This isn’t at issue. This isn’t even in the discussion. What is, is the American Service-Members Protection Act wherein we’ve passed a law specifically to insulate our service members and our allies from an international institution whose jurisdiction over us and other non-signatories we explicitly don’t recognize, and there’s a big stick in there where the President at his own discretion is explicitly authorized to use force to liberate any American or citizen of a US ally from the ICC. This does not extend to the Dutch judicial system.
DrNosferatu 1y ago
No one said Europe owned the ICC, just that Europe has to start to be more and more independent of the US, in the interest of its citizens.
- SllX 1y ago
  There is always an argument for that from each country’s, treaty organization’s, and corporation’s perspective: what are we relying on and what laws is it subject to? That cuts across both sides of the Atlantic. All I’m doing though is pointing out that no European institutions were harmed by this result, and I’ll even add to that that generally the American sanctions regime is often a benefit to our allies; and this type of sanctioning is something we have usually done in concert with our European allies. What’s different this time is that it’s targeting an ICC prosecutor rather than people who are also on the EU’s hit list, namely Putin’s cronies.
- YZF 1y ago
  I would say the citizens of Europe have greatly benefited from the partnership with the US. I'm not an American by the way. So after the US (and others) fought for Europe in WW-II. Defended Europe during the cold war (and till today). Took most of the load ($, weapons etc.) in supporting Ukraine against Russia. Now you're going to tell it to f off? And that is somehow in the interest of the citizens? How many American companies have offices in Europe? How many American products are in your life? Hacker News is based where? I would agree the partnership needs to evolve as does everything. But in a world that's looking more and more like China-"The West"-India(?) Europe's place is still in the west. That's likely the best thing for the world and for Europeans. And for Americans. Hopefully also including better partnership with the rest of the world as well. Presidents come and go. Don't get too stuck on Trump.
  - whatshisface 1y ago
    If Europe follows the US out of the west, that's bad for Europe.
  - ChocolateGod 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure Europe has spent more money on Ukraine than the US.

To be fair, the ICC isn’t a European court, at least on paper.

by SllX 1y ago

To be fair, the ICC isn’t a European court, at least on paper.

It doesn't matter if it is or isn't. The whole point was accountability to each other. That went out the window with the "American Service-Members' Protection Act" (The Hague Invasion Act) [0]. Nothing screams "complicit in genocide" like attacking and cripling the institution investigating such crimes. I'm surprised there hasn't been more public outrage at what I think is the geopolitical equivalent of having a journalist killed. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

SllX 1y ago
It does matter, even excluding America, Russia and the PRC, none of which are signatories, as well as the other non-members: the world is a big place. The ICC has many signatories across the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. An international institution doesn’t automatically become a European one when America leaves the room. > Nothing screams "complicit in genocide" like attacking and cripling the institution investigating such crimes. The law you cited is clear. Don’t touch American service members and American service members won’t touch the court. Reasonable enough given we aren’t party to the court and will not be held subject to its jurisdiction.
- megous 1y ago
  Yeah, clear law: "(b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons: (2) Covered allied persons." That includes Nehterlands, which is a member of NATO. So US can snatch Dutch war criminal from Netherlands if US president likes the person or whatever? :) Very clear law with no weird implications. Addenum: I solely react to your claim that this law is very clear.
  - SllX 1y ago
    I would actually pay money to see that happen, should the opportunity arise. Jokes aside though, remember that the prior commentator brought in the American Service-Members Protection Act as a weird form of whataboutism. Bringing that up does not transform the ICC into a European court, even if an actual American military intervention of The Hague would not bode well for the integrity of Dutch sovereignty and my advise to the European nations and citizenry that can’t grok the implications of hosting an international political institution is to convince the ICC to relocate itself so the Eurocentric among you stop mistaking it for a European court.
  - mananaysiempre 1y ago
    > [Covered allied persons] includes Nehterlands, which is a member of NATO. Because the Netherlands signed the Rome Statute, it does not (italics mine): > 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.
    - megous 1y ago
      Exceptions for everything. :-)
- bawolff 1y ago
  > The law you cited is clear. Don’t touch American service members and American service members won’t touch the court. Reasonable enough given we aren’t party to the court and will not be held subject to its jurisdiction. Not really. International law is for the most part not worth the paper its written on. However if you do believe in it, USA signed the UN charter where they in theory gave up the right to use military force except in self-defence. A foreign court holding a trial for an american citizen accused of commiting a crime in a foreign place is definitely not a valid excuse to invade someone under international law. Its also pretty hypocritical, since if someone travels to america and commits a crime there, america has no problem arresting them for their conduct while in america. Why aren't other countries allowed to do the same?
  - SllX 1y ago
    > A foreign court holding a trial for an american citizen accused of commiting a crime in a foreign place is definitely not a valid excuse to invade someone under international law. This isn’t a Dutch district court in The Hague trying ordinary crimes. This is a non-Dutch court hosted in The Hague with jurisdiction limited to signatory nations and trying extraordinary crimes listed in its charter, but again, with limited jurisdiction. Right now the extent and scope of their reach is under debate specifically between the signatory Palestinian State and the non-signatory Israel, and we’re seeing that “debate” play out between governments which have an interest in minimizing its institutional reach and the ICC itself which has an interest in maximizing its institutional reach. Real sovereign nations are, as it turns out, more powerful than the ICC. Which brings us to: > Its also pretty hypocritical, since if someone travels to america and commits a crime there, america has no problem arresting them for their conduct while in america. Why aren't other countries allowed to do the same? Other countries can and they do, and we do the same to foreigners that commit crimes in America. This isn’t at issue. This isn’t even in the discussion. What is, is the American Service-Members Protection Act wherein we’ve passed a law specifically to insulate our service members and our allies from an international institution whose jurisdiction over us and other non-signatories we explicitly don’t recognize, and there’s a big stick in there where the President at his own discretion is explicitly authorized to use force to liberate any American or citizen of a US ally from the ICC. This does not extend to the Dutch judicial system.

DrNosferatu 1y ago

No one said Europe owned the ICC, just that Europe has to start to be more and more independent of the US, in the interest of its citizens.

SllX 1y ago
There is always an argument for that from each country’s, treaty organization’s, and corporation’s perspective: what are we relying on and what laws is it subject to? That cuts across both sides of the Atlantic. All I’m doing though is pointing out that no European institutions were harmed by this result, and I’ll even add to that that generally the American sanctions regime is often a benefit to our allies; and this type of sanctioning is something we have usually done in concert with our European allies. What’s different this time is that it’s targeting an ICC prosecutor rather than people who are also on the EU’s hit list, namely Putin’s cronies.
YZF 1y ago
I would say the citizens of Europe have greatly benefited from the partnership with the US. I'm not an American by the way. So after the US (and others) fought for Europe in WW-II. Defended Europe during the cold war (and till today). Took most of the load ($, weapons etc.) in supporting Ukraine against Russia. Now you're going to tell it to f off? And that is somehow in the interest of the citizens? How many American companies have offices in Europe? How many American products are in your life? Hacker News is based where? I would agree the partnership needs to evolve as does everything. But in a world that's looking more and more like China-"The West"-India(?) Europe's place is still in the west. That's likely the best thing for the world and for Europeans. And for Americans. Hopefully also including better partnership with the rest of the world as well. Presidents come and go. Don't get too stuck on Trump.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  If Europe follows the US out of the west, that's bad for Europe.
- ChocolateGod 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure Europe has spent more money on Ukraine than the US.