4 ms·

> 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 na

by 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

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.