2 ms·

> 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 und

by 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.

bawolff 1y ago
> Real sovereign nations are, as it turns out, more powerful than the ICC. The ICC is best understood as a consortium of soverign states. The US is more powerful than pretty much all other states combined. So really its not that soverign states are more powerful than the ICC, but that usa is more powerful than everyone and does what it wants. > This isn’t a Dutch district court in The Hague trying ordinary crimes This is kind of an odd distinction given that the real dutch courts do claim universial juridsiction over international crimes. Real dutch courts claim the right to prosecute these crimes regardless of where they take place including in non-icc countries. The ICC on the other hand is much more limited.
- SllX 1y ago
  > The ICC is best understood as a consortium of soverign states. More accurately, it’s a treaty organization that relies on the sovereignty of its signatory nations to assert its claim of legitimacy. > This is kind of an odd distinction given that the real dutch courts do claim universial juridsiction over international crimes. Real dutch courts claim the right to prosecute these crimes regardless of where they take place including in non-icc countries. The ICC on the other hand is much more limited. There’s a couple of countries that subscribe to similar judicial principles. The long arm of their legal systems are in fact still limited in reality if not on paper. Regardless of the Dutch court system’s claimed jurisprudence, that is irrelevant because the ICC is not a Dutch court and I’m not inclined to view further attempts to conflate a single sovereign nation’s own court system with one rooted in a specific signed treaty between signatory nations as an argument made in good faith.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    I suppose i don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between a court established by a treaty organisation and a court of a soverign state. The reason i'm focused on this is you claimed national courts are legit. This naturally raises the question of what the difference is. What specificly is the element that you think makes treaty courts illegitament? Are you opposed to them in general or the ICC specificly? I'm just not clear on the nature of your objection specificly. From my perspective, if a state can make a court, then it stands to reason that a state can delegate to any court it feels like. If it wants to delegate some of its justice powers to the ICC, i don't see how that's any different than if it delegated those same powers to a court of its own making.
    - SllX 1y ago
      Two things: 1) I did not say the ICC was illegitimate. 2) The difference between the ICC and a nation’s own court system is the Rome Statute which defines the ICC’s jurisdiction and competencies.

by SllX 1y ago

bawolff 1y ago

> Real sovereign nations are, as it turns out, more powerful than the ICC. The ICC is best understood as a consortium of soverign states. The US is more powerful than pretty much all other states combined. So really its not that soverign states are more powerful than the ICC, but that usa is more powerful than everyone and does what it wants. > This isn’t a Dutch district court in The Hague trying ordinary crimes This is kind of an odd distinction given that the real dutch courts do claim universial juridsiction over international crimes. Real dutch courts claim the right to prosecute these crimes regardless of where they take place including in non-icc countries. The ICC on the other hand is much more limited.

SllX 1y ago
> The ICC is best understood as a consortium of soverign states. More accurately, it’s a treaty organization that relies on the sovereignty of its signatory nations to assert its claim of legitimacy. > This is kind of an odd distinction given that the real dutch courts do claim universial juridsiction over international crimes. Real dutch courts claim the right to prosecute these crimes regardless of where they take place including in non-icc countries. The ICC on the other hand is much more limited. There’s a couple of countries that subscribe to similar judicial principles. The long arm of their legal systems are in fact still limited in reality if not on paper. Regardless of the Dutch court system’s claimed jurisprudence, that is irrelevant because the ICC is not a Dutch court and I’m not inclined to view further attempts to conflate a single sovereign nation’s own court system with one rooted in a specific signed treaty between signatory nations as an argument made in good faith.
- bawolff 1y ago
  I suppose i don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between a court established by a treaty organisation and a court of a soverign state. The reason i'm focused on this is you claimed national courts are legit. This naturally raises the question of what the difference is. What specificly is the element that you think makes treaty courts illegitament? Are you opposed to them in general or the ICC specificly? I'm just not clear on the nature of your objection specificly. From my perspective, if a state can make a court, then it stands to reason that a state can delegate to any court it feels like. If it wants to delegate some of its justice powers to the ICC, i don't see how that's any different than if it delegated those same powers to a court of its own making.
  - SllX 1y ago
    Two things: 1) I did not say the ICC was illegitimate. 2) The difference between the ICC and a nation’s own court system is the Rome Statute which defines the ICC’s jurisdiction and competencies.