2 ms·

> 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'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.

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.